This document summarizes key points from a presentation on teaching all students to read successfully. It discusses research showing that virtually all students can read on grade level by the end of first grade with the right instruction. Struggling readers need to read more text, form a mental model of what readers do, and read for meaning rather than doing more worksheets or isolated skills practice. The presentation advocates for building independence in students by having them help create criteria for good reading and noticing when they apply those criteria. It also discusses ensuring students read accurately, understand what they read, write about meaningful topics, talk about reading, and listen to adults read aloud.

1. Success for All Readers
BCTELA
2013
Faye
Brownlie
&
Maureen
Dockendorf
www.slideshare.net/fayebrownlie

2. Learning Intentions
• I
can
find
evidence
of
current
reading
research
in
my
pracJce
• I
have
a
plan
to
incorporate
a
pracJce
that
is
different
to
me
• I
am
leaving
with
a
quesJon

3. • What would happen if…
• Belief
• Practice

4. We CAN teach all our kids to read.
• Struggling
readers
need
to
read
MORE
than
non-­‐struggling
readers
to
close
the
gap.
• Struggling
readers
need
to
form
a
mental
model
of
what
readers
do
when
reading.
• Struggling
readers
need
to
read
for
meaning
and
joy

• Struggling
readers
do
NOT
need
worksheets,
scripted
programs,
or
more
skills
pracJce.

6. Building Independence
• Build
criteria
with
your
students
– What
do
good
readers
do?
• NoJce
when
the
students
are
using
the
co-­‐
created
criteria
• Ask
the
students
“What
should
I
noJce
about
what
you
are
doing
when
you
are
reading?”

8. We
now
have
good
evidence
that
virtually
every
child
who
enters
an
American
kindergarten
can
be
reading
on
level
by
the
end
of
first
grade
(Mathes,
et
al,
2004;
Phillips
&
Smith,
2010;
VelluJno,
et
al,
1996).
-­‐Richard
Allington,
keynote
address,
IRA,
2011

9. 98% on grade level at year end:
Mathes,
et
al
(2004);
VelluJno,
et
al
(1996);
Phillips,
et
al
(1998)
• Every
successful
intervenJon
study
used
either
1-­‐1
expert
tutoring
or
1-­‐3
very
small
group
expert
reading
instrucJon.
• None
of
the
studies
used
a
scripted
reading
program.
• All
had
students
engaged
in
reading
2/3
of
the
lesson.

10. -­‐grades
1
and
2
–
60
minutes
reading,
30
minutes
on
skill
-­‐aim
for
your
kids
to
read
6
books
in
school
and
6
more
acer
school

11. High Success Reading
• 99%
accuracy
• Reading
in
phrases
• 90%
comprehension

12. Our key questions:
Did
that
make
sense?

13. Our key questions:
How
did
you
figure
that
out?

14. M
–
meaning
Does
this
make
sense?
S
–
language
structure
Does
this
sound
right?
V
–
visual
informaJon
Does
this
look
right?

15. The
best
way
to
develop
phonemic
segmentaJon
is
through
invented
spelling;
children
with
pens
and
pencils,
drawing
and
wriJng.
-­‐Marilyn
Adams,
1990
-­‐about
20%
of
children
do
not
develop
phonemic
segmentaJon
readily

16. • K/1
–
spend
a
maximum
of
10
minutes/day
on
phonics
–
small
impact
on
phonic
knowledge;
no
difference
on
comprehension
• Beyond
grade
1
–
no
staJsJcal
difference
for
any
phonics
• NaJonal
Reading
Panel

17. “Every
Child,
Every
Day”
–
Richard
Allington
and
Rachael
Gabriel
In
EducaJonal
Leadership,
March
2012
6
elements
of
instrucJon
for
ALL
students!

18. 1.
Every
child
reads
something
he
or
she
chooses.

19. 2. Every
child
reads
accurately.
-­‐intensity
and
volume
count!
-­‐98%
accuracy
-­‐less
than
90%
accuracy,
doesn’t
improve
reading
at
all

20. Strategy Cards – Catching Readers
Before They Fall (Johnson & Keier)

23. 4. Every
child
writes
about
something
personally
meaningful.
-­‐connected
to
text
-­‐connected
to
themselves
-­‐real
purpose,
real
audience

24. K/Grade 1 Writing
Commons & Jakovac
Samples
from
June
7th,
2012

34. 3. Every
child
reads
something
he
or
she
understands.
-­‐at
least
2/3
of
Jme
spent
reading
and
rereading
NOT
doing
isolated
skill
pracJce
or
worksheets
-­‐build
background
knowledge
before
entering
the
text
-­‐read
with
quesJons
in
mind

35. Shared Reading Lesson
Picture Book Strategy Lesson

36. Gr 3
Joni Cunningham, Richmond
•
•
•
•
•
Building
vocabulary
from
pictures
Establishing
ficJon/non-­‐ficJon
PredicJng
Directed
drawing
WriJng
to
retell
and
connect

43. The Swaps
Who
Give
away
Want
scarecrow
hat
walking
sJck
badger
walking
sJck
ribbon
crow

53. 5.
Every
child
talks
with
peers
about
reading
and
wriJng.

54. 6. Every
child
listens
to
a
fluent
adult
read
aloud.
-­‐different
kinds
of
text
-­‐with
some
commentary

55. Professional Collaboration
• InteracJve
and
on-­‐going
process
• Mutually
agreed
upon
challenges
• Capitalizes
on
different
experJse,
knowledge
and
experience
• Roles
are
blurred
• Mutual
trust
and
respect
• Create
and
deliver
targeted
instrucJon
• GOAL:
beper
meet
the
needs
of
diverse
learners

56. No plan, no point

57. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?
• Based
on
the
belief
that
collabora6ve
planning,
teaching
and
assessing
be:er
addresses
the
diverse
needs
of
students
by
crea6ng
ongoing
effec6ve
programming
in
the
classroom
• It
allows
more
students
to
be
reached
Learning
in
Safe
Schools,
page
102
Chapter
9

58. • Based
on
the
belief
that
collabora6ve
planning,
teaching
and
assessing
be:er
addresses
the
diverse
needs
of
students
by
crea6ng
ongoing
effec6ve
programming
in
the
classroom
• It
allows
more
students
to
be
reached
• It
focuses
on
the
ongoing
context
for
learning
for
the
students,
not
just
the
specific
remedia6on
of
skills
removed
from
the
learning
context
of
the
classroom
• It
builds
a
repertoire
of
strategies
for
teachers
to
support
the
range
of
students
in
classes
Learning
in
Safe
Schools,
page
102
Chapter
9

59. Why Collaboration/Co-teaching?
• Based
on
the
belief
that
collabora6ve
planning,
teaching
and
assessing
be:er
addresses
the
diverse
needs
of
students
by
crea6ng
ongoing
effec6ve
programming
in
the
classroom
• It
allows
more
students
to
be
reached
• It
focuses
on
the
ongoing
context
for
learning
for
the
students,
not
just
the
specific
remedia6on
of
skills
removed
from
the
learning
context
of
the
classroom
• It
builds
a
repertoire
of
strategies
for
teachers
to
support
the
range
of
students
in
classes
• Impera6ve
students
with
the
highest
needs
have
the
most
consistent
program
Learning
in
Safe
Schools,
page
102
Chapter
9

60. Goal:
• to
support
students
to
be
successful
learners
in
the
classroom
environment

61. Rationale:
By
sharing
our
collecJve
knowledge
about
our
classes
of
students
and
developing
a
plan
of
acJon
based
on
this,
we
can
beper
meet
the
needs
of
all
students.

62. A Key Belief
• When
interven6on
is
focused
on
classroom
support
it
improves
each
student’s
ability
and
opportunity
to
learn
effec6vely/successfully
in
the
classroom.

63. Co-Teaching Models
(Teaching in Tandem – Effective Co-Teaching in the Inclusive
Classroom – Wilson & Blednick, 2011, ASCD)
•
•
•
•
•
1
teach,
1
support
Parallel
groups
Sta6on
teaching
1
large
group;
1
small
group
Teaming

64. 1 Teach, 1 Support
• most
frequently
done,
least
planning
• Advantage:
focus,
1:1
feedback,
if
alternate
roles,
no
one
has
the
advantage
or
looks
like
the
‘real’
teacher,
can
capitalize
one
1’s
strengths
and
build
professional
capacity
• Possible
piPall:
easiest
to
go
off
the
rails
and
have
one
teacher
feel
as
an
‘extra
pair
of
hands’,
no
specific
task
(buzzing
radiator)

65. 1 Teach, 1 Support: Examples
• demonstra6ng
a
new
strategy
so
BOTH
teachers
can
use
it
the
next
day
–
e.g.,
think
aloud,
ques6oning
from
pictures,
listen-­‐
sketch-­‐draW
• Students
independently
working
on
a
task,
one
teacher
working
with
a
small
group
on
this
task,
other
teacher
suppor6ng
children
working
independently

66. Parallel Groups
• both
teachers
take
about
half
the
class
and
teach
the
same
thing.
• Advantage:
half
class
size
-­‐
more
personal
contact,
more
individual
a:en6on
• Possible
piPalls:
more
6me
to
co-­‐plan,
requires
trust
in
each
other,
each
must
know
the
content
and
the
strategies.

67. Parallel Groups: Examples
• word
work.
At
Woodward
Elem,
the
primary
worked
together
3
X/week,
with
each
teacher,
the
principal
and
the
RT
each
taking
a
group
for
word
work.
Some
schools
have
used
this
with
math
ac6vi6es.
• Focus
teaching
from
class
assessment.
Westwood
Elementary:
Came
about
as
a
result
of
an
ac6on
research
ques6on:
How
do
we
be:er
meet
the
needs
of
our
students?:
– primary
team
used
Standard
Reading
Assessment,
highlight
on
short
form
of
Performance
Standards,
Resource,
ESL,
principal
involved,
cross-­‐graded
groups
2X
a
week,
for
6
to
8
weeks
driven
by
informa6on
from
the
performance
standards
(Text
features,
Oral
Comprehension,
Risk
taking,
Cri6cal
thinking
with
words,
Gecng
the
big
picture,…
,
repeat
process
– NOT
paper
and
pencil
prac6ce
groups…teaching/thinking
groups

68. Station Teaching
• mostly
small
groups
• can
be
heterogeneous
sta6ons
or
more
homogeneous
reading
groups
• each
teacher
has
2
groups,
1
working
independently
at
a
sta6on
or
wri6ng,
1
working
directly
with
the
teacher.
• Advantage:
more
individual
a:en6on
and
personal
feedback,
increased
focus
on
self
regula6on
• Possible
piPall:
self
regula6on
(needs
to
be
taught),
6me
to
plan
for
meaningful
engagement.

69. Station Teaching: Examples
• Guided
reading:
4
groups;
RT
has
two
and
CT
has
two
• math
groups
–
Michelle’s
pa:erning
(1
direct
teaching,
2
guided
prac6ce,
1
guided
prac6ce
with
observa6on)
• science
sta6ons:
CT
and
RT
each
created
two
sta6ons;
co-­‐planning
what
they
would
look
like
to
ensure
differen6a6on,
teachers
moved
back
and
forth
between
groups
suppor6ng
self-­‐
monitoring,
independence
on
task

70. 1 large group, 1 small group
• Advantage:
either
teacher
can
work
with
either
group,
can
provide
tutorial,
intensive,
individual
• Possible
piPall:
don’t
want
same
kids
always
in
the
‘get
help’
group

71. 1 large group, 1 small group:
Examples
• Wri6ng:
1
teacher
works
with
whole
class
prewri6ng
and
draWing,
small
groups
of
3-­‐4
students
meet
with
1
teacher
to
conference
• Reading:
everyone’s
reading.
large
group:
teacher
moving
from
student
to
student
listening
to
short
oral
reads.
Small
group:
2
to
3
students
being
supported
to
use
specific
reading
strategies
or
– small
group
is
working
on
a
Reader’s
Theatre
• Math:
large
group
using
manipula6ves
to
represent
shapes,
small
groups,
rota6ng
with
other
teacher,
using
iPads
to
take
pictures
of
shapes
in
the
environment

72. Teaming
• most
seamless.
• co-­‐planned
• teachers
take
alternate
roles
and
lead-­‐taking
as
the
lesson
proceeds
• Most
oWen
in
whole
class
instruc6on
and
could
be
followed
up
with
any
of
the
other
four
co-­‐teaching
models
• Advantages:
capitalizes
on
both
teachers’
strengths,
models
collabora6on
teaching/learning
to
students,
can
adjust
instruc6on
readily
based
on
student
need,
flexible
• Possible
piPalls:
trust
and
skill

73. Teaming: Examples
• Brainstorm-­‐categorize
lesson
–
1
teacher
begins,
other
teacher
no6ces
aspects
the
first
teacher
has
missed
or
sees
confusion
in
children,
adds
in
and
assumes
lead
role.
• Modeling
reading
strategies:
two
teachers
model
and
talk
about
the
strategies
they
use
to
read,
no6ng
things
they
do
differently.
• Graphic
organizer:
Teachers
model
how
to
use
a
seman6c
map
as
a
post
reading
vocabulary
building
ac6vity,
teacher
most
knowledgeable
about
seman6c
mapping
creates
it
as
other
teacher
debriefs
with
students;
both
flow
back
and
forth