WW-07565     2000  

Developing a Minnesota Reading Initiative to Promote Early Literacy

<< return

MARIKA GINSBURG-BLOCK AND ANN M. CASEY

This paper is focused on the issue of literacy and the legislature’s role in creating a Minnesota Reading Initiative. We will outline the significance of the problem of reading failure, highlight information from the recent Literacy Summit convened at the University of Minnesota, report results from a survey of Minnesota early grade teachers and principals, and present policy implications. Building resilient communities requires foundational skills, with literacy being a primary concern. We will argue that there is urgency to this problem, that the goal of a highly literate Minnesota population is attainable, and that the legislature can provide the impetus and focus that is so desperately needed in solving the problem.

Marika Ginsburg-Block, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota.

Ann M. Casey, Ph.D., NCSP, is the Field Placement Coordinator for the School Psychology Program, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology.

Introduction

Learning to read is perhaps the most important skill for success in society that a child can gain from public education. Without reading competency, students are at-risk for many negative life outcomes, such as poorer income potential, limited employment options, and quality of life issues (such as reading for pleasure). Poor reading skills also lead to more immediate consequences in school. Without well-developed literacy skills, students will not gain the content knowledge they need to be successful in school. Academic success defined as high school graduation can be predicted by third grade reading skills (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998). For full employment in our modern, technological environment, a person must have more than basic literacy. In 1994, fewer than 50 percent of high school dropouts were employed (National Center for Education Statistics, as cited in Snow et al., 1998). As one can see, there is a downward spiral for students who don't gain basic literacy skills. This trajectory begins in first grade when some children learn to read and others don’t. By the end of second grade, students who have not mastered basic reading skills begin this downward spiral that continues without significant intervention, resulting in students ill-prepared for school - for life.

Many Minnesota students are having difficulty acquiring this very basic, yet imperative skill. In fact, many students cannot pass the eighth grade basic skills test. The failure rate is particularly high in our cities and areas with higher populations of economic disadvantage. By the time they are in the eighth grade, it’s too late to help many of these students. The only chance we have of reducing failure is to intervene early before the achievement gaps are too wide and intractable. Kameenui (1993) refers to this as the "tyranny of time." "Simply keeping pace with their peers amounts to losing more and more ground for students who are behind..." (p. 379). By the end of first grade, there are vast differences between skilled and unskilled readers, with skilled readers having twice as much exposure to print than poor readers. Stanovich (1986) refers to this as the "Matthew Effect" - "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" (Matthew, 5:29). Children who have not developed adequate word recognition skills read less, read more slowly, and have less well-developed vocabularies.

There are several reasons for the development of reading problems. While reading problems are represented across income groups and educational settings, students from low socio-economic backgrounds are at greater risk for reading failure. Language ability is one of the most important precursors to learning to read. In their seminal work, Hart and Risley (1995) found that vast differences in language development exist between middle-class children and children from less advantaged backgrounds. The development of language and vocabulary is foundational and prerequisite to the development of literacy skills. Some children entering kindergarten already have a large vocabulary and early literacy experiences. Many children from middle-class homes have had hundreds of hours of storybook reading during their early developmental years. These experiences have helped foster their cognitive and language development, which leads to larger vocabularies. In contrast, children from disadvantaged homes may have had no experience with books and likely have had far fewer conversations with adults. Both of these lead to children entering kindergarten without the prerequisite language skills necessary for reading achievement. To be specific, these students lack a particular language skill - phonemic awareness.

Phonemic awareness is the knowledge that the words we speak are made of individual sounds. In order to read, one must be able to hear the individual sounds that comprise words, and recognize the orthographic representation of these sounds—or in other words, reading requires the understanding that words are made of sounds and that letters represent sounds. Without rich early experiences, this simple concept is missing. Thus, for children who haven’t had these experiences, the standard kindergarten curriculum assumes prerequisite knowledge that does not exist. For these children to have later reading success, they must have explicit instruction in these important phonemic awareness skills. While this may seem like a simple solution, current curriculum materials available to kindergarten teachers and the prevalent instructional practices of these teachers do not provide what the children need; however, these materials are available and relevant practices are now understood.

The National Research Council convened a committee of esteemed professionals on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. This committee’s efforts resulted in book of the same title (Snow et al., 1998). After summarizing the empirical work in this area, the committee concluded the following: Reading skill is acquired in a relatively predictable way by children who:

• have normal or above-average language skills;
• have had experiences in early childhood that fostered motivation and provided exposure to literacy in use;
• get information about the nature of print through opportunities to learn letters and to recognize the internal structure of spoken words, as well as explanations about the contrasting nature of spoken and written language;
• attend schools that provide effective reading instruction and opportunities to practice reading.

Disruption of any of these developments increases the possibility that reading will be delayed or impeded. The association of poor reading outcomes with poverty and minority status no doubt reflects the accumulated effects of several of these risk factors, including lack of access to literacy-stimulating preschool experiences and to excellent, coherent reading instruction (p. 4).

Minnesota Reading Initiative Proposal

We propose that a Minnesota Reading Initiative be legislated. Such an initiative would include standards for Minnesota school children as well as training for teachers. In addition, the entire community’s role in improving literacy outcomes could be outlined as part of such an initiative. A reading initiative would emphasize the need for early intervention and explicit teaching in foundational skills for reading. The legislature could provide financial incentives for carrying out the reading initiative by targeting staff development dollars specifically for empirically supported literacy practices such as phonemic awareness and phonics instruction (NRP, 2000). Other states including California, Texas, and New York have established such initiatives, and these could be used as models for our own state. Interested legislators could refer to the Policy Options for a Reading Initiative (Carnine, undated). Following are components for such a reading initiative.

Support Prevention and Early Intervention Efforts

In order to substantiate the need for change in Minnesota’s approach to ensuring the literacy of all children, we conducted a comprehensive survey of one-fifth of Minnesota’s K-2 teachers and elementary principals, sampling a cross section of the state (See Appendices A and B at the end of this paper). We heard from more than 50 percent of the educators who were sampled. In total, 449 teachers and 94 principals responded to the survey. These educators represent urban, rural and suburban schools and serve diverse groups of students. Demographic information describing the characteristics of survey participants and their schools may be found in Appendix C at the end of this paper.

In the area of prevention, 37 percent of principals reported that their communities did not provide adequate preschool programs for children at-risk for academic failure. In urban schools this number jumps to 81 percent. The research literature on preventing reading failure is clear: intervene early. With a statewide coordinated effort, Minnesota could implement a number of measures and increase significantly the numbers of students who have reading success. The legislature has already set a goal for all Minnesotans to be literate using the Basic Skills Test as a measure. Providing incentives could strengthen this goal. These might include public recognition of districts that have increased the percentage of students passing over prior years, providing grants for innovative practices, and consultation to districts that need help in changing instructional practices.

The research is clear that children who have good language foundations upon entering kindergarten are more likely to benefit from reading instruction. There are empirically validated simple measures of early literacy skills which can help identify students who will need more intensive, explicit instruction in order to learn to read (Good and Kaminsky, 1996). Frequent monitoring of student reading progress is one of the most useful ways of ensuring that students get the instruction they need. To address these issues, a Minnesota Reading Initiative would include the following:

• Increased funding for Early Childhood Family Education programs - particularly for families of disadvantaged circumstances with a focus on fostering language development;
• Funding family literacy programs;
• State funding for preschool education and all-day every day kindergarten - Pianta and McCoy (1997) found that the number of months of preschool experience is related to second grade reading achievement and third grade behavior;
• Institute higher standards for preschool teacher certification with accompanying higher pay;
• Encourage the use of instructional strategies and materials, which have empirical support (including phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge, alphabetic principle, and decoding strategies);
• Use frequent assessment to monitor student progress;
• Make careful use of instructional time for reading;
• Employ accountability systems and provide incentives for districts meeting the goals set by the state;
• And state funding for public and school-based libraries.

Set Higher Standards for Teacher Preparation Programs

One of the most prominent themes illustrated by the Minnesota Literacy Summit, a forum held in September 1999 that brought together educators and researchers to discuss literacy issues, was the challenge afforded by the changing demographics of Minnesota’s schools. Along with the influx of diverse groups, many of which speak English as a second language, comes the need for additional programming in schools to support all schoolchildren and their families. Unfortunately, many Minnesota schools and educators are unprepared for this challenge that affects not only urban schools, but also suburban and rural schools as well.

Most preservice teachers spend very little time in preparing to teach reading, taking just one or two courses in language arts. In our recent survey of Minnesota K-2 teachers and elementary school principals, teachers reported an average of seven preservice credits, or approximately two courses, in literacy. Nearly a quarter of these teachers did not report any preservice credits in literacy instruction. We also found that 49 percent of principals and 43 percent of teachers felt that teachers were not prepared adequately by their preservice training to teach reading, and 57 percent of principals and teachers reported that preservice teachers were not adequately prepared to teach writing.

There is a chasm between current instructional practices in schools and what the research literature has identified as important components of literacy instruction, such as phonemic awareness, phonics, and explicit comprehension strategy instruction. The National Reading Panel (2000) recently concluded that "extensive formal instruction in reading comprehension is necessary" (p. 16) during preservice teacher training. This panel also raised concerns about the methods of teacher preparation and suggested that far more research be conducted before conclusions can be drawn. It is also a difficult challenge to prepare teachers to work in increasingly diverse settings. Eighty-five percent of principals and teachers who responded to our survey indicated that teachers were inadequately prepared by preservice coursework to meet the literacy needs of English Language Learners.

The National Research Council (Snow et al., 1998) reported on a study of more than 1,000 school districts. The study concluded that every dollar spent on more highly qualified teachers netted greater improvements in student achievement than did any other use of school resources (Ferguson, 1991). Our survey showed that over 80 percent of Minnesota teachers received their undergraduate training in Minnesota. Since so many Minnesota teachers are being educated here in the state, we suggest that Minnesota include high-level training for educators as part of a Minnesota Reading Initiative, including the following features:

• Urge Minnesota teacher preparation colleges and universities to support strong, research-based core curriculum in reading. Consider examination of teacher candidates on core reading strategies as requirement for certification;
• Reinstate reading licensure - every school must have at least one professional with a depth of knowledge in literacy instruction;
• And require additional preservice credits in literacy for K-2 teachers.

Target Staff Development Funds Toward Empirically Supported Literacy Strategies

As stated previously, most preservice teachers spend very little time in preparing to teach reading. Educational assistants, who often provide one-on-one or small group teaching to the least skilled readers, may receive no formal instruction in teaching reading. This amount of preparation is insufficient to provide beginning teachers or educational assistants with the knowledge and skills to help all children learn to read successfully (Snow et al., 1998). Therefore, continuing professional development opportunities are crucial for educators to become successful at reading instruction.

In our recent survey, 31 percent of Minnesota teachers reported that professional development opportunities in early literacy are inadequate. In order to improve our professional development programming, we must focus on three areas: content, process, and support.

First, we know that a balanced approach to literacy instruction in the context of effective teaching, organization, and appropriate materials results in improved literacy skills for most, if not all students. The knowledge of how to implement these proven practices must be accessible to K-2 teachers, educational assistants, and parents through ongoing multidisciplinary staff development opportunities. Content must focus on translating empirically-based practices, such as phonemic awareness instruction for beginning readers, into classroom-friendly procedures. When there is strong evidence for using a particular approach, this should be the preferred method rather than using unproven techniques. We should not be using untested methods with our children. Materials with proven performance currently exist, but are not in common practice (Adams, 1990; O’Connor et al., 1998). Perhaps what is needed most is to work with teachers to develop their problem-solving skills, and incorporate this into their classroom practices.

Second, when we consider the process of training educators, we must recognize that hands-on, multidisciplinary training is essential. Theories of adult learning, including Bandura’s social learning theory, emphasize the important nature of autonomy, observation of a skilled model, hands-on learning, feedback, social support and reflection for the acquisition of new skills (Bandura, 1977; Merriam, 1987). These recommendations are in sharp contrast to the traditional one-shot workshop models currently used in our schools. In a series of studies evaluating the effectiveness of an experiential, collaborative training model for Head Start teachers and parent volunteers, researchers found observable changes in classroom practices, collaboration, and satisfaction among participants in contrast to trainees who participated in a traditional workshop model. Based on these findings, continuing education of educators must include:

• Hands-on learning opportunities;
• Instruction and coaching from field-based exemplars;
• And opportunities for parents and educators to participate in training together (Fantuzzo et al., 1996, 1997).

Third, in order for training efforts to be successful, educators need broad-based support that emphasizes the importance of ongoing staff development rather than one-shot trainings. Currently, the amount of state education resources allocated toward staff development represent a fraction of the state’s education budget. Considering the new challenges our educators face daily, more emphasis on staff development must occur in our state. A Minnesota Reading Initiative should include the following:

• Increased funding for ongoing staff development in literacy;
• Required continuing education credits for K-2 teachers in literacy instruction;
• Mandatory training in literacy for educational assistants who work with K-2 students;
• And inclusion of preschool teachers in training opportunities.

Build Communities To Support Literacy

In order to develop a school-based community that supports literacy, schools need strong leadership around early literacy instruction, adequate personnel, opportunities for collaboration among educators, and collaboration between the school and larger community. In our survey, 56 percent of teachers could not say that strong leadership in early literacy instruction exists within their school.

One source of leadership in early literacy instruction at the school level is the position of Reading Specialist. Currently, only 30 percent of the principals sampled across the state indicated that they employed a Reading Specialist in their school. Fifty percent of principals and 55 percent of teachers surveyed agreed that the Reading Specialist license should be reinstated in the state of Minnesota. Currently, this licensure is not available. Without this incentive, the number of educators who seek advanced knowledge in literacy instruction will dwindle. In terms of support from others during literacy instruction, 29 percent of teachers reported inadequacy in this area. In terms of the need for professional collaboration, 97 percent of teachers reported that collaboration among colleagues about literacy instruction is important. In extreme contrast, less than one-third of teachers reported that their school supports collaboration by allocating time in the schedule.

In the earlier grades, school culture, peers and family exert an equal influence on students (Maehr and Fyans, 1989). A major source of risk for vulnerable students is a lack of continuity in their learning environments. Therefore, preschool and early grade teaching must include a strong emphasis on family education. Creating relationships among children’s contexts for learning is essential to enhance learning outcomes. In addition to family education, a promising strategy for connecting the cultures of home and school is to encourage members of the community to formally participate in the schooling of children as educational assistants and volunteers. The benefits of these community partners are numerous. Community partners increase the school’s resources to meet the needs of students (Manz et al., 2000). They have a significant impact on the culture of the school, bridging the gap between schools and communities, and creating a welcoming and supportive environment for diverse students. Community partners may share similar cultural backgrounds with students and their families and serve as mentors. Research shows that when a coordinated effort involving one-on-one literacy tutoring by community partners is implemented in schools, student learning in literacy will increase (Juel, 1996). In order for these efforts to be successful, tutoring programs must have coordination and tutors must be provided with training and ongoing support in implementing empirically supported instructional strategies.

In light of our understanding of the importance of building communities to support literacy, a Minnesota Reading Initiative should include the following:

• Reading specialists in every building who also coordinate literacy tutors and volunteers;
• Common time for teachers to plan and collaborate around literacy instruction;
• And incentives for schools to involve families and community partners.

Conclusion

Minnesota will not maintain its high literacy rate without significant intervention. This is a solvable problem if concerted effort and legislative action is brought to bear upon this important issue. First, we need prevention and early intervention. Focusing intervention on eighth graders who fail the basic standards test is not going to solve the problem. Instead, we need to prevent this failure by identifying students at risk for reading failure in kindergarten and first grade and providing them with intensive intervention. In addition, we need Early Childhood Family Education for our families of lesser economic means that emphasizes the importance of developing language and literacy skills in their children. We need more state and federally funded preschool education programs that increase exposure to language and literature. We need teachers who have better preservice preparation in the teaching of reading and teaching reading to diverse student populations including English Language Learners. We need every school to have at least one staff member with in-depth preparation in the teaching of reading. And finally, we need quality staff development in reading instruction that has empirical support and provides greater opportunities for professional collaboration among teachers. The steps presented in this paper are supported not only by the research literature and the successful initiatives of other states, but also by the educators and administrators of our state, as indicated by their responses to our comprehensive survey. The Minnesota legislature could make great strides in increasing literacy in our state by instituting a Minnesota Reading Initiative such as one outlined in this paper.

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C

References

Adams, M.J. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Carnine, D. Undated. Policy Options for State Reading Initiative. National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators: University of Oregon, Eugene.

Fantuzzo, J. S. et al. 1996. “The Head Start Teaching Center: An Evaluation of an Experiential, Collaborative Training Model for Head Start Teachers and Parent Volunteers.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 17, pp. 79-99.

Fantuzzo, J. et al. 1997. “The Philadelphia Head Start Teaching Center: Promoting Empowered Parental Involvement through Parent-Teacher Collaborations.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 12, pp. 425-37.

Ferguson, R. 1991. “Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters.” Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer, 28, pp. 465-98.

Good, R. and R. Kaminski. 1996. “Assessment for Instructional Decisions: Toward a Proactive/prevention Model of Decision-making for Early Literacy Skills.” School Psychology Quarterly. 11, pp. 326-36.

Hart, B. and T. Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Juel, C. 1996. “What Makes Literacy Tutoring Effective?” Reading Research Quarterly. 31, pp. 268-89.

Kameenui, E.J. 1993. “Diverse Learners and the Tyranny of Time: Don’t Fix Blame; Fix the Leaky Roof.” The Reading Teacher. 46, pp. 376-83.

Maehr, M. L. and L. J. Fyans Jr. 1989. “School Culture, Motivation, and Achievement,” in M. L. Maehr and C. Ames, eds. Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Vol. 6, Motivation Enhancing Environments. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Manz, P. H. et al. 2000. “Community Partners: Improving the Effectiveness of Urban Schools and Empowering Low-income, Ethnically Diverse Community Residents.” Manuscript submitted for publication.

Merriam, S. B. 1987. “Adult Learning and Theory Building: A Review.” Adult Education Quarterly. 37, pp. 187-98.

National Reading Panel. 2000. “Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction.” Retrieved from the World Wide Web at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm.

O’Connor, R.E., A. Notari-Syverson and P. F. Vadasy. 1998. Ladders to Literacy: A Kindergarten Activity Book. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Pianta, R. and S. McCoy. 1997. “The First Day of School: The Predictive Validity of Early School Screening.” Journal of Applied Development Psychology. 18, pp. 1-22.

Snow, C.E., M. S. Burns and P. Griffin. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Stanovich, K.E. 1986. “Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy.” Reading Research Quarterly. 21, pp. 360-407.

<< return

Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Extension Store at (800) 876-8636.