Since before the first American public school was even founded in 1635, we have been teaching our children to read. Yet literacy for all has remained elusive. According to the most recent NAEP scores, only one third of fourth-grade students in the U.S. read at or above proficiency. What can we do to improve these results?
Literacy experts, researchers from other disciplines, and practitioners have been trying to answer this question for decades. Based on all the evidence accumulated, they agree that Structured Literacy is the most effective way to solve our nation’s literacy crisis. Structured Literacy is a comprehensive approach to literacy instruction grounded in the science of reading that has been shown to be effective for all students.
So why hasn’t every district implemented Structured Literacy in its schools? In large part, it’s because of prevailing misconceptions about literacy instruction. Below, we’ll address some of the most common myths and explain how Structured Literacy can help.
For many of us, reading is as natural as speaking. So, it’s not surprising that many people believe learning to read is a straightforward process that requires minimal instruction. But research tells us that reading and writing are more recent skills that developed after the evolution of the human brain. According to the latest cognitive neuroscience research, reading requires areas of the brain to work together to recognize, identify, and comprehend written words—something that the brain was not originally intended to do. Over time, the brain has developed to process and make sense of print, but explicit instruction is necessary to learn to read.
Another prevalent myth is that children will learn to read with little guidance. This has led to ineffective, inefficient practices such as guessing words based on patterned texts, the first letter in a word, or the illustrations. There is a misconception that these practices will develop reading fluency and comprehension. Over the last five decades, a large body of interdisciplinary research on literacy has accumulated to suggest this is not the case. In fact, the research finds that most students need—and all students benefit from—explicit and systematic instruction in all domains of language that pertain to reading and writing.
In other words, students learn best when educators directly teach literacy skills, removing the guesswork for students, before they are expected to practice or apply them. It also means that skills are introduced in a logical, evidence-based sequence that allows students to build competency and confidence as new, more complex concepts are introduced.
While it’s true that decoding and spelling, also referred to as encoding, are different skills, research tells us that teaching and practicing spelling supports reading and vice versa. So, integrating decoding and encoding instruction reinforces these critical skills.
For example, when students blend sounds to read words with the /sh/ and /ch/ digraphs, educators also could include a spelling activity in which they dictate words with /sh/ and /ch/ (e.g., “chip” or “gash”) and prompt students to repeat the word, segment the sounds, and then write a letter or letter combination for each sound. This integrated approach will not only help students acquire these skills more quickly but also conserve precious instructional time.
With all of the demands being placed on teachers these days, some may be tempted to present the daily lesson plan and quickly move on once they believe some of their students show an understanding of it. But the evidence tells us this is not best practice.
Learning to read is a process with concepts becoming more complex over time. For example, students need to learn the connections between letters and sounds before they can decode words. So, lessons need to be sequential and cumulative, building on skills introduced in previous lessons, and students must be able to apply each skill before they move on. Without mastering foundational skills, students can fall behind and become easily frustrated. Educators need to keep track of the skills students demonstrate successfully to know if they are ready for the next skills in a sequence.
Progress monitoring, summative assessments, and informal observational assessments provide data, or information to help educators gauge their students’ mastery—for example, we recommend teachers move on to the next unit of instruction when 80% of students meet a benchmark or pass a unit test. Data from these assessments also helps educators identify which students may need additional practice or support through intervention programs.
While our nation’s higher education programs prepare educators to teach our students, there is great variability, and most have not yet incorporated evidence-based literacy instruction into their plans of study or coursework. According to a 2023 report by the National Council on Teacher Quality “Only 28% of teacher preparation programs adequately address all five core components of scientifically based reading instruction.” The National Reading Panel report identifies the five core components as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Programs that align with a Structured Literacy approach incorporate all of these components in addition to the language domains.
Administrators can address areas in need of further development by providing their educators with high-quality and sustained professional learning focused on implementing evidence-based literacy practices, instructional coaching, and using data to inform instruction.
To learn more about evidence-based practices in literacy instruction and how your district can improve its literacy outcomes, download our white paper, The Time is Now: Advancing Student Achievement Through Structured Literacy.