Matched, manageable, and moving

Early literacy programs must match students’ needs, be feasible for teachers to manage, and move students forward.

Last year, I decided to coach my daughter’s 1st-grade basketball team. On the first day of practice, I stumbled onto the court with a handful of girls, many first-timers. Tucked in my shorts pocket was the recommended sequences of “lessons” — practices designed to support early foundational basketball skills. In this case: dribbling, dribbling, dribbling. In fact, as I looked at the various options for practices recommended to new coaches, it didn’t seem like instruction would be moving.

We shared the court with a 2nd-grade team. During warm-ups, it became clear that the 2nd-grade coach was a fantastic player himself. Through the legs. Around the back. Swoosh. Swoosh. Swoosh. Toward the end of practice, the 2nd graders scrimmaged while we continued dribbling in circles. I could hear the 2nd graders’ talented athlete-turned-head-coach yell, “The next person that presses before three is getting benched!” I glanced over at the player being reprimanded. Her dazed look confirmed what I suspected. She had no idea what he was talking about: Three? Press? Benched? With intentions to prepare his team for game-like situations, his instruction was unfortunately not matched to his players’ current skills and knowledge of the game.

While raising the hoops for the incoming middle schoolers at the end of our practice, the 2nd-grade coach and I edged into conversation. Both of us realized we were not equipped with a plan that would move and match our roster. However, where could we find manageable resources?

Teaching is teaching. Whether on the court or field, in the pool or classroom, instruction must be matched, manageable, and moving. As states, districts, and schools put in place specific early literacy instruction and programs, educational leaders must sift through the noise to establish and solidify practices that meet these criteria and set their staff and students up for success.

Matched

My coaching colleague’s instructions didn’t match up with what his players knew how to do. The same is true for some literacy programs. Good literacy instruction will meet students where they are. Determining whether instruction is matched requires careful assessment analysis before, during, and after instruction. Teachers should be able to answer the questions: Where are these students now? How do I know?

Assessments come in all shapes and sizes. Some are more formal. These include:

• Universal screeners that allow us to quickly peek at all students to determine which students to look at more carefully.
• Diagnostic tools that dig a bit deeper into specific aspects of literacy or the needs of specific students.
• Observations that enable teachers to notice what a student is doing, is almost doing, and is not doing.

Assessments must be carefully and constantly selected and explored, and the results must be analyzed in a way that creates a whole picture of a student’s literacy behaviors. Only then can the programs, resources, or curriculum be matched to students.

By working backward from their ultimate goals, educators are better equipped to make decisions about what to teach, to whom, and when.

Often a program’s direct instruction is designed based on standards for a particular grade level. However, teaching is a constant juggling act. Tiny humans of varying experiences, background knowledge, and skills will rarely match a program’s exact design. Districts that have the most success will ensure their teachers can examine assessments and that their students work alongside a program’s lesson design. By working backward from their ultimate goals, educators are better equipped to make decisions about what to teach, to whom, and when.

Manageable

It was one thing for the 2nd-grade coach and I to know our instruction wasn’t working. It was another to find a different approach that worked for us. Manageable instruction must be practical and affordable.

First, time is always a struggle for teachers. Educators cannot exhaust precious time combing through endless and potentially meaningless Teachers Pay Teachers accounts to find resources that meet their students’ needs. Nor should they have to dig through mountains of fluff in a district-provided program to find what will work for them and their students. Less is more. Tried, true, and research-based practices — with a handful of concrete tools and resources — will support student learning just as much as loads and loads of Pinterest-inspired creations. It’s crucial that teachers have these at their fingertips. They also need to receive ongoing training to use them confidently.

Second, as districts consider new program purchases, manageable programs must be affordable. In some cases, districts are cutting teaching positions and purchasing programs costing millions — millions! — without concrete evidence the new program will be better than their current results and practices. What if after cutting, skimping, and morphing budgets, students are no better off than before?

Moving

Endless drills or scrimmages without basic instruction won’t do much to improve basketball players’ skills. And as the late Mikhail Gorbachev, the final premier of the Soviet Union, is credited with saying, “If you are not moving forward, you are moving backward.” Instruction can be both matched and manageable but not move students forward. For students, particularly those struggling with early literacy skills, acceleration and moving forward must be the end goal.

Keeping students in low-level texts without access to complex grade-level texts and conversation forces them to hit a ceiling.

Too often, well-meaning teachers set a path of helplessness for their students. Much like my recommended dribbling-only practice, overdoing phonological awareness drills after a weak test score could unintentionally stunt student growth. Similarly, keeping students in low-level texts without access to complex grade-level texts and conversation forces them to hit a ceiling. Requiring controlled decodable readers until students reach a particular age or grade, guarding them from choice or challenge, sends a message about who reading and writing are reserved for — not you, not yet, not without permission. None of these scenarios are best for students because they pause student movement for the supposed safety of the predetermined path.

Questions to ask about early literacy programs and curricula (click to reveal)

Is this instruction matched?

• Do our assessments tell us about our students’ foundational skills, as well as their skills in reading, writing, thinking, and speaking?
• Do we understand this unit’s end goals and grade-level standards?
• In combining the above, who needs what, when, and from whom?
• What additional resources or personnel in our building will be involved?

Is this instruction manageable?

• Is the shift worth the cost?
• Do we have plans for continued adult learning opportunities?
• Are our teachers able to plan and deliver instruction without burnout?
• Do teachers have all that they need at their fingertips?

Is this instruction moving?

• Do students see successes building toward an end-goal of “real” reading and writing?
• Are students advancing in subskills along a continuum?
• Are students transferring and applying their skills and knowledge to authentic reading, writing, speaking, and listening opportunities?

The right questions

By the end of the season, our 1st- and 2nd-grade girls had not only met but exceeded the goals and expectations for the program. Our instruction had adjusted — we were constantly matching coaching to our observations of student skills and moving our expectations forward, ensuring the planning and practices were manageable for the players and for us. All teaching and learning can be like this. It starts with district literacy leaders asking an honest question: Is this instruction matched, manageable, and moving?

 

---

This article appears in the Spring 2025 issue of Kappan, Vol. 106, No. 5-6, pp. 55-57.