Why are only 32% of Connecticut fourth-graders reading on grade level? And why are so many of Connecticut’s school superintendents in denial about our failure to give every child the opportunity to read well?
Research tells us that, with the proper instruction, we can teach 95% or more of our students to read proficiently by the end of third grade. And really, most children can be proficient readers by the end of first and second grades.
Our low scores are not simply due to the pandemic. In 2019, Connecticut was teaching only 45% of fourth graders to read proficiently, which is consistent with poor scores going back decades. This number is not surprising, as research tells us that 40-50% of students will learn to read no matter what we do — and the other 50-60% require structured literacy to learn to read well. And to be clear, Connecticut’s failure is not unique; schools throughout the country are failing to teach our students to read.
If we do nothing else in our schools, let’s teach our children to read. Reading means access to everything. And over 70 years of scientific, peer-reviewed research tells us precisely how to teach reading effectively to nearly every student.
So where did we go wrong? Most colleges and universities failed to incorporate the research into their teacher preparation programs, so almost no one — not even reading specialists or special education teachers — has been trained in the science of reading or structured literacy. In Connecticut and throughout the country, most school districts have been relying on ineffective “balanced literacy” programs like Units of Study (by Lucy Calkins/Teachers College) and Fountas and Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI).
“Balanced literacy” programs like the above teach children to “read” by using “cuing.” That is, if the child encounters a word they can’t immediately identify, they are cued to guess the word by looking at the picture or looking at the first letter of the word and identify a word that would make sense. With balanced literacy, sounding out the word is simply “one strategy” to identify the word.
Except more than 70 years of reading research tells us that sounding out the word is the only effective strategy for word identification.
“Cuing” is disastrous for most children. It encourages the very strategies that poor readers use and interfere with a child learning to read fluently. The research tells us that children need to learn to sound out the words (e.g., phonics instruction), which is part of structured literacy instruction. Moreover, phonics cannot be done as a “supplement.” It must be done systematically and sequentially, using evidence-based approaches. Effective phonics instruction leads to “orthographic mapping,” which results in physical changes in the brain to enable a child read with automaticity.
Some people claim that “all children learn to read differently” and that “phonics instruction is not for everyone.” It simply isn’t true. Structured literacy, which includes phonics instruction, can benefit every student. Even the 40-50% of those who will learn to read no matter what we do will benefit from structured literacy and are likely to become better spellers.
So what do we do now? Connecticut has passed a series of laws to try to remedy the problem — several targeting reading instruction for students with dyslexia and one targeting reading instruction for all students. The one causing controversy right now is the so-called Right to Read law. It’s meant to ensure all Connecticut schools provide effective reading instruction for students in grades K-3.
[CT’s Right to Read law faces criticism. The state is pushing back]
Right to Read requires that districts use an “approved” reading program (one identified by the Connecticut State Department of Education) or to obtain a waiver from the state to do something else. Programs noticeably missing from the state’s “approved” list? Teacher’s College Units of Study and Fountas & Pinnell — which are used throughout the state. Interestingly, prior to the approved reading programs being named, the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) supported Right to Read. Once the state announced the list of programs — that did not include Teachers College or Fountas & Pinnell — superintendents and CAPSS began to challenge whether Right to Read was “lawful.”
The state education department and legislature have heard from many superintendents who complained that they should not have to change their reading instruction, since “our district is already successfully teaching reading.” Their definition of “successful,” however, is questionable — as no Connecticut district has reached that target of 95-plus percent of students reading proficiently by the end of third grade.
As an example, Glastonbury is one of the more vocal districts in this regard, claiming it should be able to continue its chosen reading program, Teachers College Units of Study (a balanced literacy program). Yet in Glastonbury in 2022-2023, only 72.4% of fourth-grade Glastonbury students were deemed to be reading proficiently — far less than the 95% that research tells us is possible.
A close look at the Glastonbury student data reveals something else: those who receive free or reduced-price lunches were significantly less likely than those who don’t to achieve reading proficiency. Despite having the same teachers and the same curriculum as the other students, only 47.6% of Glastonbury fourth graders who received assistance with their meals were at or above proficiency in reading. In stark contrast, 76.8% of fourth-grade children from higher-income families were proficient. My hypothesis is that, when children are not making progress with Glastonbury’s reading curriculum, wealthier families are obtaining tutoring for their children.
This pattern is seen in other districts as well. For example, in Greenwich in 2022-2023, only 49.5% of fourth graders receiving free/reduced price lunches could read at or above proficiency. Whereas 81% of students who did not need public assistance for meals were reading at or above proficiency.
Houston, we have a problem. An enormous problem. But a solvable problem.
Will the Right to Read law solve it? Unfortunately, no. It is not realistic to provide teachers with a packaged reading program and a few hours of training and expect there to be a substantial change in student outcomes.
Teaching reading is not intuitive. To make a real difference for our students, we need to provide authentic training to all K-3 teachers, special education teachers, and reading specialists in structured literacy — because it is the only instructional approach aligned to the science of reading. Will this be expensive? Yes. Will it take time? Yes, effectively training our teachers is likely to take approximately two years —including instruction and supervised practicum. Effective teacher training programs in structured literacy — that include the essential supervised practicum — are on the International Dyslexia Association website, with the designation “accreditation plus.” Although there are some universities that provide this level of teacher training, there are no Connecticut colleges or universities that currently meet the “accreditation plus” standard.
Some educators are surprised that structured literacy is recommended for all students, as often, educators think structured literacy is needed only for students with dyslexia. It isn’t. Research tells us that 50-60% of all students require structured literacy to learn to read well. And the other 40-50% (who will learn to read no matter what we do) will still benefit from it. Students with dyslexia are among those who require structured literacy. The difference between a student with dyslexia and a student who is simply an “at risk” reader is that the “at risk” reader will progress more quickly through structured literacy.
When I have proposed training teachers to Right to Read advocates, some have objected to the likely cost. And absolutely, training all our K-3 teachers, reading specialists, and special education teachers will cost millions. But the cost of not teaching our children to read well is much higher. Connecticut schools already spend millions on private school tuition for students with dyslexia and on pretty, packaged reading programs that are ineffective for most students.
What other education costs should take priority? There are none. Students who are poor readers in elementary school usually continue to be poor readers and are at high risk for depression, juvenile justice involvement, substance use, dropping out of school, unemployment, and under-employment. To give our kids a meaningful opportunity to succeed, our state and our districts must invest in effective teacher training in structured literacy, including necessary supervised practicum. A one-week training and/or a packaged program will not produce effective reading instructors.
Providing authentic training and supervised practicum in structured literacy to our teachers is a critical investment and will pay huge dividends to our children and to society. If the state and our districts invest in training our teachers now — in ways that do not cut corners — in two to three years, our K-3 teachers, special education teachers, and reading specialists will all be prepared to teach every child to read effectively going forward.
If our teacher preparation programs include effective training in structured literacy, with a supervised practicum, all our new teachers will be prepared to teach every child in their classroom to read effectively.
What are we waiting for?
Diane Willcutts is an education advocate, supporting families of children with disabilities throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts. She is a past president of the Learning Disabilities Association of Connecticut.