Systems exist in a variety of forms throughout education. We use different terms to refer to these systems: macro and micro, building and district level, MTSS and Special Education. The list could go on and on. However, like interconnected gears, it takes systems that carefully weave together to result in the best outcomes for our students. Making the switch to evidence-based practice grounded in Science of Reading research requires supporting teachers to change their practice and having strong leadership that carefully evaluates and adjusts curriculum, assessment, and school structures as needed. Creating change that is sustainable and has a high level of student impact requires participation at all levels - school boards, district leaders, building leaders, and practitioners. When all of these stakeholders start rowing together, in the same direction, is when we see the needle start to move for our students. When working in our schools, the day-to-day realities of teaching and mentoring students can put blinders on our view. The work is fulfilling but also taxing and exhausting, and there is often little energy left to think much beyond our own buildings. One fantastic opportunity this sabbatical has provided me with is being able to step outside my bubble. I have had the chance to see systems and initiatives at the state level, the district level, the building level, and the classroom level. While no two districts or classrooms are the same, what has become abundantly clear to me just how much systems matter.
Attending literacy symposiums and conferences outside NH has also allowed me to peek at how other states are handling the challenges presented when dealing with the current literacy crisis. For example, in many states, literacy coaches are almost more common than literacy specialists. An emphasis has been placed on supporting educators with applying research-based principles to their teaching, and the research supports this. Other states have moved forward because of new laws in their state or initiative pushed by their state's Department of Education. While some have been more successful than others, it is in the details of the systems that success is found.
When we take a slightly more micro view, we look to districts to see how systems function at this level. This is where the bulk of change happens in a local control state like NH. Some districts are larger and must consider different age levels where students come together in larger school settings as they grow. These districts have the challenging task of aligning all schools in their district, so that students receive similar instruction throughout the grades and have similar backgrounds as they merge together in middle or high school.
One theory I've come to appreciate I originally heard from Susan Hall of the 95 Percent Group. She discussed the need to create a "literacy ecosystem" for students. This can be done by purchasing a curriculum, but it can also be achieved by aligning teaching standards and practices vertically throughout a school. When we think about this alignment, it is essential to think vertically and horizontally as well as think about any support systems such as MTSS or Special Education that are present. If we can use similar instructional routines throughout our tiers, students and teachers are able to save "cognitive desk space." This allows them to free up mental energy for the learning and teaching of skills and content rather than new routines. If our instructional methods are evidence-based, they will work for the majority of our students. What students will need is varying amounts of practice and repetition to master those skills and this is where MTSS supports come into play.
Another system that contributes to building a robust literacy ecosystem is the use of data. I have seen this in many different forms throughout the state. And while assessment data is being collected (and often in copious amounts!), it is how we use this data that makes the difference. Having universal screeners that are quick and reliable is the first step. These assessments, which should be given to all students, must not use a significant amount of essential instructional time. Instead, in their brevity, they serve as a sort of temperature check to determine if students are on track for grade-level expectations. Students who do not meet benchmark levels should then have follow-up diagnostic testing completed to pinpoint the area(s) of weakness and help inform instruction to fill in these gaps.
But while these steps are taking place, it is also essential to have a system in place through which data follows the student. In some systems, this is built in through data tracking software or Google Sheets created as "Kid Grids." But in other districts, there are bumps and gaps where students do not have their data follow them. This can result in students "slipping through the cracks" of the system. If our goal is proficient reading for all of our students, we must track our students' progress and provide them with the necessary supports - even in middle and high school.
MTSS Assessment System (note: in well-functioning systems, assessment data informs instruction)
To summarize, what I am advocating for here may seem simple but is actually quite challenging to achieve. I believe that it is when systems are working cohesively at all levels that we will make the most impact on our students. As you reflect on your own experience as an educator or parent (or like many of us, both), I would urge you to ask these questions:
- Is there synergy between what is being presented at different levels of the system (state, district, building, and classroom level)? Are you getting consistent, research-based leadership when it comes to literacy instruction?
- What systems are in place to guide best practices at the state, district, building, and classroom levels? Are educators being supported in the changes they are being asked to make?
- Is there a literacy ecosystem in your building? If so, what is it? Can you articulate the common beliefs that instruction operates under and the research upon which it is based?
- Are members of all of the systems willing to have hard conversations? These conversations involve deep dives into data, identifying trends, and constantly working toward improvement. They involve all stakeholders setting goals for student progress and holding each other accountable for these goals by working collectively to support and better one another.
Perhaps the most important conversation at the root of all systems is a fundamental question about our belief in the ability of children to learn to read. Do all members of the system understand and believe the research that states that with evidence-based practice, we can get 90-95% of our students to be proficient readers? This universal belief in the ability of our students, and the refusals to make excuses, is what we need to drive our systems to be effective. The change will not happen overnight, but it is possible. Let's all dedicate ourselves to being part of a system, no matter what role we may play, that fights for literacy for all students and drives change.