By Jenn Hayhurst, & Jill DeRosa

Imagine entering a classroom where some students are working in small groups, others in partnerships, and some independently. There is a low but lively hum of students’ voices. Perhaps they are making plans for how to show their learning to the rest of their classroom community. Some might be negotiating the meaning of a text. Maybe they are conferring with another student about a learning goal. As all of this is happening, the teacher is moving freely through the classroom, keenly aware of how the space is functioning. Classroom supplies, tools, and charts are thoughtfully set up to provide easy access to all learners. The library is central to the function of the room and is reflective of students’ identities and interests. This classroom is a classroom built for agency.  

Agency is one of those ubiquitous terms in education. It seems to be everywhere, it is part of every presentation, and yet, when pressed to define it, its meaning is somewhat elusive.  In Peter Johnston’s seminal book, Choice Words, he defined agency as, “Children should leave school with a sense that if they act, and act strategically, they can accomplish their goals.  I call this feeling a sense of agency.”

Johnston’s book, Choice Words, lent legitimacy to the authentic approaches to teaching and learning we believe in. Having a sense of agency holds the promise to empower all to learn with a sense of agency because our work matters, and everyone has the potential to make a positive impact. We believe agency makes it possible for learning to be joyful and celebrated by everyone in the learning community.  In our book, WIRE for Agency Four Simple Moves that Transfer Learning, we expanded on Johnston’s definition: “Agency is a belief system that says your actions can and will make an impact. Students who exhibit agency feel valued; they operate with choice and a sense of freedom.  They keep learning and trying to achieve because they have conviction that their work matters.” 

Access, Language, and Choice: Three Core Beliefs to Sustain Agency

There are three core beliefs that sustain and nurture agency in the classroom. Giving access, careful deliberation for language, and offering choice are common beliefs shared by many teachers. However, these beliefs become even more powerful when used as a lens for agency:

1. Access: Students get what is needed (independence, additional support, and time) to think.
2. Language: Teachers use language as a vehicle to foster safety, empathy, equity, and trust.
3. Choice: Students are given a choice to decide content, planning, strategy, and people to work with. 

Realizing agency for teachers and students may be only one or two small tweaks away. One possible way to focus this work is to reflect on one aspect of the classroom environment. Let’s use the classroom library as an example:

1. Access: Determine if the reading materials in the library are reflective of the students in the class. Some questions to evaluate access might be: “Do the text bands match the reading readiness of the students in this classroom?”  “Do the books match their reading identities in terms of culture or  interests?”
2. Language:  Determine if there is evidence of student voice within the library. Some questions to ask students might be: “Do the categories of the bins make sense to you?” “How can a person find a book they are able to  read by themselves?” “What is the best part of the library? Why?”  “How do you select a book for your book bin?”  “How can the library be improved?”
3. Choice: Determine if the classroom library is open-ended for student participation. Managing the library and book selection has traditionally been under the purview of the teacher. If you give students some choice for book selection, this small library becomes an important step towards agency. Giving students some choice for how the space will be used and managed is another step toward agency.  Some questions to ask might be: “Is there evidence of student choice to influence in the classroom library?” If yes, “What is it?”  If no, “What can be shifted to include more choice?”

For the purpose of this post, we used the classroom library as an example, but there are many aspects of the classroom environment that can be a mediator for agency.  Here is a checklist that might be a useful tool to start this work. 

Closing Thoughts 

An agentive classroom does not have to be an imaginary place.  Many classrooms already have a lot of what it takes to grant access to agency for learning. If you are tired of students asking for supplies, then try moving supplies where they can be readily accessed. If you are tired of students asking for clarifying directions, try using an anchor chart that students help to create using language they understand. If you are tired of students saying, “I’m done.” try giving them choice for what to do next. These small but significant tweaks will make your teaching and their learning even more meaningful if you give it a go.  When we teach students to think flexibly about their classroom environment, it is but a stepping stone for them to challenge other “fixed” spaces in society. Life-long learners who are critical thinkers are who is needed for a better tomorrow. So start teaching for a sense of agency today.

Check out- WIRE for Agency: Four Simple Moves That Transfer Learning

By Laura Robb –

Robbie, a fifth grader, loves to read and always has a self-selected independent reading book on his desk. He tells me that if the book’s close by, he can read it after finishing class work.  Frequently, Robbie’s book travels home with him when he’s “into it and can’t stop reading.” Most days, Robbie reads more than one hour: twenty minutes during independent reading at school and up to one hour at home. It’s no surprise that Robbie scores high in reading comprehension and vocabulary on annual state tests. The volume of reading he does allows Robbie to read more than two million words a year, and he enlarges his vocabulary by experiencing how words work in diverse contexts and situations. 

The research of Richard Allington (2014), Steven Krashen (2004) and the scientific study of the benefits of voluminous reading by Samuels and Wu (2004) reveals a high correlation between time spent on independent reading and students’ achievement. Access to books, culturally relevant classroom libraries and time to read at school can make a difference in students’ reading growth and achievement.

In 1977, Richard Allington wrote this article: “If They Don’t Read Much, How They Ever Gonna Get Good?” and his words still ring true today! Forty-six years have passed since Allington published his article, and a quick “fix-it” program for literacy instruction still doesn’t exist. According to the Scholastic Teacher & Principal School Report, only 36% of teachers set time aside for independent reading and/or read-aloud every time class meets. Nearly two in three teachers (63%) say they wish they had time for independent reading, and even though many schedules it as the last learning experience, time runs out, and students don’t read.        

There are school districts where administrators still believe that allowing students to read in class is an ineffective use of instructional time. Yet, these school leaders usually understand that students must practice daily to develop an outstanding school sports team or band. The same is true for reading: daily practice is critical for success. A school-wide belief that volume in reading matters starts with the principal, who can rally teachers, students, and parents around an independent reading initiative by doing the following:

1. Finding funds for culturally relevant classroom libraries and ensuring that all English Language Arts teachers have libraries for students to self-select books they can and want to read.
2. Setting aside funds to annually update classroom libraries and encourage teachers to ask students for suggestions for new books, turning the library into “our library.”
3. Showing the support of teachers and students by visiting classes to celebrate the independent reading of self-selected books.
4. Creating class schedules that have enough time for independent and instructional reading at school.
5. Finding the time in a busy schedule to read aloud to classes and send this message to faculty and students: I value and enjoy reading!

Developing a Culture of Reading

Support from the principal can make a huge difference in how teachers feel about students reading at school.  When teachers know the role independent reading plays in developing students’ literary tastes and personal reading lives, when teachers are readers who enthusiastically share their book love with students, they become the reading role models who can empower others to read.     

If students look forward to independent reading at school and develop the stamina to concentrate deeply for 30 minutes, they are more likely to read at home. Moreover, a combination of daily reading at school and at home can result in students “meeting” up to three to four million words a year.  The ever-increasing reading mileage measured on students’ “book odometers” ensures they meet words used in diverse contexts, resulting in continual vocabulary growth. In addition, they build background knowledge of how topics and genres work, develop fluency, learn new information and concepts, and experience the pleasure of discussing books with peers.  However, students need access to books at school and home to continually grow as readers and thinkers.

Access is Key

When students have access to books through classroom libraries and their school’s media center, they can return a completed book and then check out a new one as they shop for books in their classroom libraries. A strong school media center with a certified librarian is also important to students’ growth as readers because it offers a larger book collection with more choices and an expert who has a deep knowledge of the collection to share with and support teachers and students. 

According to a study in The Handbook of Early Literacy Research, Volume 2, editors: Susan Neuman and David Dickinson note that (page 31, 2006), in low-income neighborhoods, the ratio of age-appropriate books per child is 1 book for every 300 children. Research cited by Alia Wong (2016) supports studies completed in 1996 and 2013: 61% of low-income families with children have no children’s books in their homes, and only 61 percent of poor families with young children have internet-enabled mobile devices. In addition, according to Wong’s Atlantic article “Where Books Are All But Non-Existent” (2016), poor families tend to underutilize public libraries, whether it’s because they worry about being charged late fees or they’re reluctant to put their name on a card or due to their lack of experiences with public libraries, they don’t use them. 

Because a large percentage of families living in poverty don’t have books at home, the responsibility of developing access falls to principals, teachers, and the school librarian, who can encourage students to take books home during the summer, on school nights, weekends, and over holidays. If you want your students to love reading and choose reading at school and home, they need continuous access to a wide range of books that will keep them engaged throughout the year.

Closing Thoughts

It’s time to recognize that access to books for all children and scheduling independent reading of self-selected books each time class meets is an effective, research-tested way to increase students’ reading achievement and love of reading! To become readers, children need to read books they choose—books they can and want to read- that are relevant to their lives! Yes, reading volume matters!

References

Allington, R. L. (1977). “If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. Newark, DE: IRA, 21 (1), 57-61.

———. “How Reading Volume Affects Both Reading Fluency and Reading Achievement.” International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, vol. 7, no. 1, 2014, pp. 13–26.

Krashen, Stephen D. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. 2nd ed., Libraries Unlimited, 2004.

Neuman, S. B. “The k\Knowledge Gap: Implications for Early Education.” Handbook of Early Literacy Research, volume 2. Editors: Dickinson, D.K . & Neuman, S. B. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 29-41.

Samuels, S. Jay, and Yi-Chen Wu. “How the Amount of Time Spent on Independent Reading Affects Reading Achievement: A Response to the National Reading Panel.” CiteSeer, Jan. 2001, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.539.9906.

Wong, Alia (2016). “Where Books Are All But Non-Existent.” In The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/where-books-are-nonexistent/491282/

Follow Laura on Twitter @LRobbTeacher

Robb Communications

Laura’s Website

Check Laura’s Newest Book – Volume in Reading Matters

By Dr. Sam Bommarito

The reading wars have become more inflamed in the past few weeks. With recent podcasts and other posts, the social media branch of the Science of Reading has doubled down on its pronouncements that Balanced Literacy is at the root of today’s reading problems. The suggestion has been made that major publishers like Heineman are in it for the money, and they are selling products they know are inferior. That makes for a great public relations campaign. It makes for terrible science. Please consider the following:

• It is not settled science.

Researchers talking to the Washington Post say that it is not settled science LINK, P.L. Thomas says it is not settled science LINK. Most importantly, The Executive Summary of the Reading Research Quarterly says we are not there yet to establish a Science of Reading. LINK. Given all that,  common sense says the claim by Moats and her followers that it is settled and that they represent the one and only SOR is not justified.

• There are problems with the social media version of SOR

Moats’ approach makes almost exclusive use of synthetic phonics. Analytic phonics is ignored or viewed as an inferior approach. There is considerable evidence that programs based on Moat’s approach don’t work for all kids. The Hechinger Report found OG isn’t a magic bullet LINK. A full decade of using synthetic phonics in England has had equivocal results LINK. Reports from Australia indicate that some children don’t progress even after years of synthetic phonics LINK. The research backing up claims of SOR success often uses weak standards LINK. Common sense dictates that we have other things ready when SOR fails to do the job for selected groups of children.  

• Through podcasts and other social media posts, critics of Balanced Literacy have carried out vicious attacks claiming BL has failed. Their attacks totally misrepresent what BL is about. Their data “proving” BL doesn’t work doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. Too often, the attacks are based on complete misrepresentations of the actual facts LINK. Also, despite research around the long-term negative impact of retention,  LINK, LINK, LINK, they laude the success of literacy programs like the one in Florida, which include retention as part of the program.

What is Balanced Literacy? Consider this excerpt from the 5^th edition of Michael Pressley’s upcoming book.

“.. The cover of this book states that the topic is balanced reading instruction, a term that has recently become associated with meaning emphasis or whole-language approaches to teaching reading. I urge readers not to make that assumption, as this book does not fully support meaning-emphasis (whole language) or skills-emphasis instruction (phonics); it rather pulls the research for the many components required of reading and presents the most effective instructional approaches based on reading research…” (bolding is mine)

For a complete view of BL and what is really done in BL,  readers are also invited to read Fisher & Fry’s book about Balanced Literacy LINK.  

The story currently being told on social media claims that districts have been buying programs that don’t work for decades. Common sense dictates that even the most gullible folks would never keep buying things that don’t work over that length of time. There is plenty of data showing that BL works for many students LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK.

• To some degree, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

We’ll begin with the thought that both BL and the constellation of practices encouraged by SOR help some but not all. My dissertation focused on the last round of the reading wars. One of my committee members had an important insight into those wars. He said, “Sam, the reading wars have never really been about phonics vs. no phonics. They have always been about my phonics (analytic) vs. your phonics (synthetic). During the ensuing years (2000-present), many districts adopted programs that favored analytic phonics (meaning emphasis) approaches and deemphasized synthetic phonics (code emphasis)—doing things that way WAS NOT a complete failure. Kids were getting phonics. Analytic phonics did work for many of them. But it did not meet the needs of all the children.

I am critical of both “sides.” We have tried (or we are trying) both ways of teaching phonics and found both helped some but not others. We are at a crossroads. If we go to either extreme (mainly meaning emphasis)  or the other (mainly code emphasis), some children will not be helped. Common sense dictates that we must find a way to provide both approaches to phonics and give each child the kind of phonics instruction that is most likely to help. That is a topic for a future blog.

• There is more to comprehension than providing background LINK. Teaching comprehension strategies requires the use of the time-consuming gradual release model. Yet some SOR advocates call for reducing the amount of time that we spend teaching comprehension strategies. Duke’s work around the Active Reading Model and the Sciences of Reading is compelling LINK, LINK. It makes more sense than the “provide background knowledge & all will be well” approach.

• The weaponization of research. Some folks use the SOR label in order to sell a particular program. See what Jorden Page says in this blog entry LINK. Also, consider Rachel Gabriel’s thoughts on this topic LINK.

.

Finding common ground and common practices.

I’ve often explained my centrist point of view LINK and my concept of a Reading Evolution LINK. They are rooted in P.D. Pearson’s concept of “The Radical Middle” LINK. I want to take special note of something Pearson said in that paper:

“In educational research, more generally, I find the debate about qualitative versus quantitative research about as compelling as the new phonics versus whole language debate. I cannot imagine why any field of inquiry would want to limit itself to a single set of tools and practices. Even though I find both debates interesting and professionally useful, I fear the ultimate outcome of both, if they continue unbridled by saner heads, will be victory for one side or another. That, in my view, would be a disastrous outcome, either for reading pedagogy or educational research…”

The common sense solution of cutting through the Gordian Knot around the issue of how to best teach reading is to use the best ideas from all sides.  

Doing that is the key to identifying common ground. Districts must create a curriculum first, find materials and programs to fit it and implement it. The key to making that implementation happen is informed, empowered teachers working within that curriculum. Districts must be allowed to create a curriculum that fits their particular children the best. They should not be forced to buy expensive programs that may or may not fit their needs, especially since research-based alternatives are available. LINK.

So as I first said four years ago- it’s time to walk the centrist path and create a Reading Evolution. Dare to dream!

Dr. Bommarito has a 51-year career in education, teaching every grade from K through graduate school. He has served as chair of both the St. Louis and the Missouri ILA affiliates. He’s made numerous presentations at ILA (formally IRA) conferences, including national conferences. In spring 2022, he was a featured speaker at the LitCon conference. the main speaker at Albany New York’s ILA conference. Most of his career was spent working in Title 1 buildings as a reading specialist and/or staff developer. He has a weekly blog about literacy https://doctorsam7.blog/

By Patty McGee

Grammar.  The word alone harkens deep emotions in many of us. We all have a grammar story to tell.  My grammar story has diagramming sentences as its main character. Raise your hand if you loved this exercise.  I know I sure did!  I was stellar at horizontal lines holding the subject and predicate, tagging below on diagonal lines the other parts of speech, the adjective below the subject, the adverb below the predicate, and on down the page with more and more sophisticated usage.  

The problem was I had no idea how to transfer that know-how into my actual writing in order to inject it with power, purpose, and craft.  My personal experience is indicative of the central core of failed grammar instruction: grammar learning is oftentimes siloed so far away from writing that the leap is just too much for students to make. I offer you five instructional moves to ensure grammar and writing instruction stay up close and personal. 

Move #1: Expand the Definition of Grammar

In many cases, grammar is perceived in a prescriptive approach, which includes a set of rules to follow that we learn through identifying parts of speech and sentence types. Instead,  let’s redefine grammar in a transformational manner as a set of tools that a writer uses to mold, construct, and shape their writing. I liken grammar to the artist’s paintbrush or the whittler’s blade. The more we know how to use grammar, the more we are able to sculpt our writing to amplify our voice.

Move #2:  Teach Grammar in Units of Study

When we give students time to explore a set of related grammar concepts over an extended period of time, we build grammar know-how while creating ample opportunities to use this in their writing.  Here are a few tips for creating a grammar unit:

1. Remember that a true study gives learners the chance to question, hypothesize, seek answers, experiment, memorize, seek feedback, and reflect. Create 5-10 minute pockets of time, three to five times per week to study grammar.  Mix up the time to include a variety of these experiences.
2. Go deep with a focus area. For example, spend an entire unit on a sentence study exploring, playing with, and using simple, compound, and complex sentences (I suggest always starting a series of grammar units with a foundational unit on sentences).  
3. In each unit, follow the research on the three phases of learning which includes surface learning, deep learning, and transfer (Hattie 2008).  In phase one, surface learning, study the grammatical concept in mentor texts.  Notice how writers use, let’s say, different sentence structures.  Then study those sentence structures across time.  Practice using those sentence structures with partners.  In the last part of the unit, set up time to transfer these new skills into writing.  Be sure to revisit these new skills in writing across many text types across the year.

Move #3:  Prioritize Usage

The ultimate goal of grammar instruction is for students to use grammar effectively in their writing.  Take, for example, this piece from a primary student.  I have labeled the way this student used grammar.

Without knowing this student, I am confident that she was probably not saying to herself, “Let me begin this piece using a sentence with correct subject/verb agreement in the simple past tense.”  She did, however, do just that!  With a focus on usage, students are more likely to incorporate what they are learning into their writing.

Move #4:  Teach Grammar Strategically

When students are taught how to strategically use grammar, they are more likely to eventually master those concepts.  When teaching strategically, create an anchor chart that includes a step-by-step on how to use the grammar concept in writing. Model in your own writing so learners can envision what each step looks like.  It may look like this chart:

Move #5:  Build in time to play

Playful grammar?  Yes, please!  One way to play with grammar is to use Grammar Word Cards.  These cards are a collection of different parts of speech, endings, and punctuation. Here’s how to use them:

1. After printing out the cards, laminate so they will last for a long time.  Then cut the words out. Put in a baggie or envelope.
2. Create partnerships or trios of students.  Ensure there are enough bags of words for each partnership or trio.  So if there are 20 students in your class, be sure to have about 10-word bags.
3. Challenge students to use the Grammar Word Cards in different ways.  You might say:
   1. Build a compound sentence
   2. Build a compound sentence with words in alphabetical order
   3. Build a simple sentence that is more than ten words long
   4. Build a few simple sentences.  Combine them into a compound sentence.  Try to make them into a complex sentence.

Tip!  In lieu of correcting students if their attempts are off-base, challenge students to find and correct the error.  For example, if there is a comma missing in a compound sentence say, “That is almost a compound sentence. There’s one more thing you need.” Encourage students to problem solve.

These five simple yet powerful instructional moves will have a huge impact on how students use grammar as their artistic tool to mold, construct, and shape their writing. 

Go teach grammar brilliantly!

Learn more about Patty McGee- Click here!