Essential Questions for Early Grade Reading: Teaching and Learning

Early Grade Reading Playbook: Chapter 7

Overview

Reading proficiency in the early grades sets children on a path to lifelong success. Children who read well by third grade are far more likely to graduate high school, enroll in college and thrive across all subjects. Communities can close reading gaps through high-quality instruction aligned to the Science of Reading, well-trained teachers, early intervention and coordinated support across education and neighborhood systems.

This is part 7 of StriveTogether’s Cradle-to-Career Outcomes Playbook: Early Grade Reading. The playbook synthesizes research and practical guidance communities can use to improve early grade reading.

Browse Playbook

Schools with well-trained, specialized early literacy teams with representative teachers can effectively facilitate a flexible, equitable and culturally relevant literacy program.

New to the Early Grade Reading Playbook?

Learn how to get the most value out of the Early Grade Reading Playbook by reviewing the below resource.

About the Early Grade Reading Playbook

Science of Reading Overview and Importance

The Science of Reading is built on decades of rigorous research exploring how the human brain acquires reading skills. In 1997, the United States Congress tasked the U.S. Department of Education with establishing the National Reading Panel to synthesize existing research and identify effective methods for teaching children to read. This panel, composed of 14 experts — including school leaders, teachers and reading scientists — analyzed over 100,000 studies on reading instruction.

Their findings provided clear, evidence-based guidance on the most effective approaches to teaching reading. The panel identified four essential components of reading instruction:

Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness: the ability to identify and manipulate individual sounds in spoken words;

Systematic phonics instruction: teaching the relationships between letters and sounds;

Strategies to improve fluency: the ability to read with speed, accuracy and expression; and

Techniques to enhance comprehension: understanding and interpreting the meaning of text.

This groundbreaking work defined a structured, evidence-based approach to reading instruction, commonly referred to as the “Science of Reading.” These findings emphasized the importance of teaching the five pillars of literacy — phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

Why the Science of Reading matters

The Science of Reading has profound implications for educators, learners and education systems. It offers a shared framework for teaching and assessing reading, guiding educators on:

How to effectively teach foundational literacy skills,

What to prioritize in early reading curricula,

How to monitor student progress to ensure reading proficiency by the end of third grade, and

Where to focus professional development efforts for teachers.

As states increasingly adopt Science of Reading policies, many have begun implementing teacher training programs, updating curriculum standards and revising teacher preparation requirements to align with these research-backed practices. These measures aim to ensure that all students, regardless of background, receive high-quality reading instruction that builds the skills essential for lifelong learning.

To date, state legislation on the Science of Reading primarily focuses on increasing teachers’ knowledge through preparation and professional development. However, effective implementation also requires a broader infrastructure. This includes professional development aligned with specific high-quality curricula and ensuring principals have the necessary expertise to support instructional changes. Without these elements, teachers may face disproportionate responsibility for improving literacy instruction (Shanker Institute).

By grounding reading instruction in proven methods, the Science of Reading offers a clear path to improved literacy outcomes for all students.

Question 7: Does each school have a well-trained, specialized early literacy team to facilitate a flexible, equitable literacy program?

Why it matters

Specialized literacy teams help build teacher capacity through professional learning and coaching, ensuring consistent and effective instruction across classrooms (Neuman & Cunningham, 2009). They also lead data-driven interventions, using assessments to identify struggling readers early and tailor support to their specific needs (Foorman et al., 2016). Schools that implement structured, multi-tiered literacy support — such as Response to Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) — with trained literacy specialists see stronger reading gains, particularly for students at risk of falling behind (Gersten et al., 2008).

Contributing factor

Teacher training, learning and development

The percent of teachers who have been trained in the Science of Reading.

[The percentage of teachers who have access to] teacher coaching and professional development (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Percentage of kindergarten teachers that have passed a pre-service performance assessment prior to obtaining their initial license (National Education Association).

Percentage of lead pre-K teachers with at least a bachelor’s degree (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Percentage of lead teachers with specialized training in pre-K (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating alignment among professional learning, standards, curriculum and assessments (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with professional learning time and opportunities (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators who participated in job-embedded professional learning opportunities in the previous year (National Education Association).

Percentage of workforce members who receive training in culturally-responsive instruction, especially to understand a child’s developmental progress to inform instruction (STEP Forward with Data Framework).

A study of California public school performance in mathematics and English language arts found that aside from socioeconomic status of students, a major predictor of student achievement is the preparedness of teachers. Underprepared teachers — those teaching on emergency permits, waivers, and intern credentials — are associated with decreased achievement for all students, especially for students of color (Learning Policy Institute).

The school builds a well-trained and specialized early literacy team to facilitate a flexible and equitable early literacy program that systematically moves students towards reading proficiency (Instruction Partners).

Each school has an early literacy team, composed of (but not limited to) school and system leaders, coaches, teachers, interventionists, and coordinators of special populations (e.g., Multilingual Learners). A subset of members serve as the early literacy leadership team, which is responsible for ensuring that early literacy initiatives are implemented effectively and continuously improving. All team members understand their roles and responsibilities (Instruction Partners).

Early literacy team members and all early literacy educators have the content knowledge and instructional skill set necessary to use data to move every student, especially those in priority groups, toward reading proficiency (Instruction Partners).

All early literacy team members and educators consistently engage in ongoing professional learning, including training and coaching in the Science of Reading, best practices for supporting specialized populations (e.g., MLs), the specific curricular resources in use, and relevant classroom observation tools (e.g., the Foundational Skills Classroom Observation Tool). (Instruction Partners).

Early literacy team members strategically and collaboratively support Tier 1 whole- and small-group instruction as well as interventions to ensure that students meet their goals (Instruction Partners).

Early literacy team members evaluate the implementation of early literacy strategies through analysis of a variety of data sources (e.g., student assessment, staff surveys) and classroom walkthroughs using an observation tool (e.g., the Foundational Skills Classroom Observation Tool). (Instruction Partners).

The early literacy leadership team plans for and provides targeted support based on data collected (Instruction Partners).

Adopt training and professional development strategies that ensure the teacher workforce is culturally and linguistically diverse and responsive to the needs of children and families being served (Alliance for Early Success).

Establish research-based teacher competencies that address child development; protective factors; social, emotional, and behavior management; and cultural and linguistic appropriateness (Alliance for Early Success).

Support training and coaching for teachers working with special populations including dual language learners and children with disabilities (Alliance for Early Success).

Establish a coordinated professional development system to reflect the principles and indicators of NAEYC’s Blueprint for State Early Childhood Professional Development Systems (Alliance for Early Success).

Educational institutions develop an aligned professional development system, and sufficient compensation, to ensure a well-trained, competent, and qualified workforce in birth-to-5 services and child care in the pre-K to third grade. This system would include infant health specialists, early childhood development specialists, preschool and K-3 teachers, principals, health and mental health professionals, school social workers, nurse home visitors, and child trauma psychotherapists (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Teacher preparation programs train teacher candidates on the Science of Reading (NCTQ).

Districts partner with teacher preparation programs on teacher residencies and induction (National Education Association).

Percentage of preparation program graduates surveyed indicating satisfaction with their preparedness to serve as the teacher-of-record (National Education Association).

Preparation programs survey graduates about their preparedness to serve as the teacher-of-record and report their response rates (National Education Association).

Preparation programs use pre-service performance assessments to determine candidate preparedness prior to program completion and/or initial licensure (National Education Association).

Districts align professional learning with standards, curriculum and assessments (National Education Association).

Districts have professional learning plans, including induction and mentoring, for teachers, education support professionals (ESPs) and specialized instructional support personnel (SISP) (National Education Association).

Districts integrate theories, research and models of human learning into the planning and design of professional learning (National Education Association).

Districts provide educators with targeted support based on formative and summative evaluation results (National Education Association).

Districts provide extra resources and assistance for those educators in hard-to-staff schools (National Education Association).

Districts provide funding for educators to access professional learning that addresses new education research and technology that will help improve instruction or support for students (National Education Association).

Districts provide ongoing professional learning and support to administrators, including training in equity and racial and social justice to better support Indigenous educators and students as well as educators and students of color (National Education Association).

Districts provide teacher leadership development (National Education Association).

Districts support regular, job-embedded professional learning opportunities (National Education Association).

Districts use a variety of student, educator and systems data to plan, assess and evaluate professional learning (National Education Association).

Research suggests that coherent and sustained teacher preparation and professional development, which involve active learning through coaching and modeling support, are more effective in enhancing teachers’ knowledge and skills (Shanker Institute).

Legislation in approximately 45 states requires training for educators in evidence-based reading instruction and/or implementation of an instructional coaching program.

Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act adopted the professional-learning program LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) which was used to train teachers in new teaching methods (Bellwether).

Tennessee’s Tennessee Literacy Success Act (2021) requires specific literacy training be provided to teachers (Bellwether).

Georgia’s Georgia Early Literacy Act (2023) has the state’s Department of Education to develop or purchase literacy training for K-3 teachers and requires teachers to complete the training (Bellwether).

Effectively supporting teachers involves more than directly investing in their development. Teachers need instructional materials that support their practice as well as school leaders capable of creating the conditions for change. When all these components work together, they lay a robust foundation for improvement (Shanker Institute).

Allowing flexibility in implementation, but pairing it with support — e.g., professional development or curriculum lists — so that districts can more efficiently select high-quality programs and instructional materials (Shanker Institute).

Supporting existing teachers by offering professional development opportunities that are grounded in reading science (Shanker Institute).

Professional development in Texas addresses the important issue of vertical alignment in reading. The commissioner is charged with developing and making available literacy academies for teachers with appropriate professional development for each grade band. The academies are also required to create a specialized screening and training program for students who may have dyslexia (Shanker Institute).

For Texas teachers in grades K–3 professional development must include training in systematic instructional practices in the five pillars of reading, and the use of empirically validated instructional methods for struggling readers. In addition to those skills, the academies for teachers in grades 4–5 must provide training in comprehension, inferential and critical thinking. For teachers in grades 6–8, the academies must include strategies for multisyllabic word reading, vocabulary development, and comprehension of expository and narrative text. In addition, teachers must be trained in an adaptation framework that enables them to respond to differing student strengths and needs, and degrees of English proficiency for students receiving special education services. The academies will also focus on helping teachers develop collaborative strategies to active student involvement and motivation to read (Shanker Institute).

All Texas teachers in grades K – 8 who provide instruction in content areas such as mathematics, science, or social studies must receive training in strategies for incorporating reading instruction into the curriculum for their subject area (Shanker Institute).

Among the most important features of professional development may be its content focus and the degree to which it is tied to the student curriculum content that teachers are expected to teach. Previous research indicates that professional development focused on strategies associated with curriculum content can promote teacher learning within the classroom. For example, Mississippi’s noted gains in the 2019 NAEP report were supported by providing statewide professional development modules on the Science of Reading tied to evidence-based curricular materials with coaching support to ensure high fidelity in classroom practices (Shanker Institute).

Recent research has shown that coaching is a promising model to support teachers’ professional learning, although scaling up implementation in large school districts remains challenging (Shanker Institute).

Like many other states, Delaware identifies the five pillars of reading as the essential components of an evidenced-based curriculum. The law requires districts to align their assessments and progress-monitoring tools to support instruction and to identify students who need additional support. To ensure that teachers are well-prepared to take on these responsibilities, it requires districts to provide professional development aligned with the adopted curriculum and creates a supervisory role for an individual to assist in its implementation (Shanker Institute).

Districts mandate successful completion of a residency program prior to obtaining initial licensure (National Education Association).

Preparation programs require school-based experiences beyond a semester of student teaching (National Education Association).

State provides funding for induction programs (National Education Association).

State provides funding for preparation programs to establish residency programs with local school districts (National Education Association).

State provides resources to grow preparation programs in minority-serving institutions (National Education Association).

Investing in hiring, training and retaining a high-quality and diverse workforce of educators (Urban Institute).

State provides funding and technical assistance to strengthen professional learning in areas with high concentrations of poverty, Indigenous students and students of color, with emphasis on mentoring, implicit bias and cultural competency (National Education Association).

State provides funding for job-embedded professional learning opportunities to help educators improve their instructional repertoire (National Education Association).

Tennessee’s Teacher Preparation and Training: To support foundational literacy skills instruction, the state developed standards for training K-5 teachers to effectively teach reading. All K-5 educators have access to training that focuses on the five foundational literacy skills, either through their formal preparation as a teacher candidate or through a free course provided by the state. All K-5 teacher candidates and current K-5 teachers must demonstrate their understanding of the foundational literacy skills approach and the use of newly adopted high-quality instructional materials (SCORE Tennessee Policy Pillars).

Question 8: Does the school maximize and direct time to continuously improve the effectiveness of instruction and intervention?

Why it matters

Maximizing and strategically directing instructional time is essential for improving early literacy outcomes, as research shows that both the quantity and quality of instruction significantly impact reading achievement (Torgesen, 2004). Effective use of time involves dedicated literacy blocks, targeted small-group instruction and extended learning opportunities such as tutoring and intervention periods (Connor et al., 2009). Schools should allocate at least 120 minutes per day for Tier 1 (core) literacy instruction that includes foundational skills, language comprehension and differentiated small group instruction (Instruction Partners).

Contributing factor

Effective use of instructional time, collaborative planning time and instructional support

Percent of schools who dedicate at least 120 minutes a day to literacy instruction (Instruction Partners).

Percent of schools who use targeted small group instruction as part of their literacy block (Instruction Partners).

Percent of schools who offer extended learning opportunities in reading (Instruction Partners).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with collaborative planning time (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with guidance and support for instruction (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with instructional time (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with the time dedicated to planning (National Education Association).

Tier 1 instruction includes targeted small group time for all students to get specific support and practice (Instruction Partners).

Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction utilizes evidence-based interventions aligned with the core curriculum, addressing specific student needs through targeted, data-driven support. Flexible grouping ensures students receive appropriate instruction and move between tiers based on ongoing progress monitoring and demonstrated mastery. (Reading Rockets)

The school maximizes and directs all available time to continuously improve the effectiveness of instruction and intervention (Tier 2 and 3 instruction), including ongoing adult professional learning (Instruction Partners).

Members of the early literacy leadership team have protected time to conduct regular, collaborative whole- and small-group classroom walkthroughs, meet and analyze data, and reflect on intervention (Tier 2 and 3) program effectiveness. The amount of time a school or system decides to protect will depend on local context (e.g., number of classrooms they need to observe) (Instruction Partners).

Members of the early literacy team have protected time to engage in weekly, ongoing professional learning (Instruction Partners).

Members of the early literacy team have protected time to engage in the data cycle process (Instruction Partners).

Teacher uses structured curriculum and instructional materials that encompass literacy along with other subjects, including a consistent scope and sequence for building decoding skills and word recognition alongside knowledge, comprehension, writing, speaking, and other dimensions of literacy. Science of Reading makes extensive use of formative and benchmark assessments to track student progress and inform instructional differentiation (Bellwether).

Districts implement scheduled job-embedded planning, instructional support and collaborative time (National Education Association).

Districts provide resources to guarantee dedicated time for teacher teams to plan and review student data to improve instructional results (National Education Association).

State policy supports regular job-embedded planning, instructional support and collaboration (National Education Association).

State provides resources for planning, instructional support and collaboration. Instructional support and collaboration may include professional learning communities, professional learning teams, lesson study, cohort learning, mentoring and induction) (National Education Association).

State requires districts to obtain educator input on instructional minutes (National Education Association).

Question 9: Are teachers and schools making significant contributions to academic growth for students?

Why it matters

Schools’ contribution to student outcomes: School effectiveness measures aim to capture schools’ impacts on student achievement on test scores, as well as more long-term outcomes, such as high school graduation, college access and success, and eventual earnings (Education-to-Workforce). In most local education agencies and states, schools’ first view of their impact on each student happens with third grade standardized tests. Analyses of nationwide data by the Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University showed that, although test scores are higher, on average, in more affluent school districts, the relationship between school affluence and student outcomes does not hold when examining student learning growth (Education-to-Workforce).

Teachers’ contribution to student learning: Research has proven that teachers are one of the most important contributors to student learning and social-emotional development (RAND 2019). Measuring their contributions to student learning relies on measuring their students’ growth on learning outcomes (sometimes called “value-added”). Value-added models measure contributions to student outcomes by considering students’ initial performance levels (for example, using prior test scores) or other background characteristics. Value-added measures (VAM) in early grades like K-2, where standardized testing is not typically administered, rely on alternative methods to estimate student growth. One common approach uses early literacy assessments, such as DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) or NWEA MAP (Measures of Academic Progress), which provide baseline and progress data aligned with literacy standards. Another method involves calculating teacher contribution scores based on cohort growth, comparing the progress of a teacher’s students to that of similar students within the district or state, accounting for factors like prior achievement and demographics. Additionally, classroom observations, student work portfolios and other qualitative proxies are often incorporated to provide a more comprehensive view of teacher impact in the absence of standardized tests. These methods are widely discussed in research on early childhood education and teacher evaluation systems (e.g., McCaffrey et al., 2004; Kane & Staiger, 2012).

Multilingual learner progress: True fluency in multiple languages is an incredible asset to individuals, their families and global society. Multilingual learners (MLs), also known as English Learners (ELs) or English Language Learners (ELLs), represent a rapidly growing population in U.S. public schools, accounting for over 10% of all students nationwide. These students have the opportunity to continue developing proficiency in their home language while acquiring English as a second — or sometimes third or fourth — language. However, this process is complex and demanding, particularly in systems that often face challenges such as a shortage of multilingual teachers, inconsistent implementation of bilingual or dual-language programs, and the pressures of high-stakes accountability testing. Research shows significant disparities in outcomes between ML students and their non-ML peers, with long-term English Learners — those who have not achieved English proficiency after five to seven years — being particularly at risk. These students often have a GPA below 2.0 and perform two to three years below grade level in English language arts and math. Additionally, they face higher dropout rates and lower rates of college enrollment, underscoring the critical need for targeted support and resources to help these students succeed (Education-to-Workforce).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Multilingual learner progress

Student enrollment by English language acquisition status. For instance, when enrolling students in a California PK-12 public school, parents or guardians complete a home language survey. This survey identifies students who speak only English at home as English only (EO). Those students identified as having a language other than English at home are assessed for their English language proficiency within the first 30 days of enrollment. Based on this assessment, students who are determined to have sufficient English language proficiency to access the curriculum without additional support are identified as Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP), while those who require additional English language development support are identified as English learners (EL). Additionally, as students move through the grades, ELs that achieve English language proficiency are identified as Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who are (or have ever been) classified as English language learners (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who are classified as Long-Term English language learners (LTELs) (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who are classified as “At-Risk” Long-Term English language learners (AR-LTELs) (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who had been classified as English Language Learners but are now reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) (Californians Together).

Percent of English Language Learners who make progress towards English language proficiency. The California Schools Dashboard has a measure called the English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI) which determines whether an English Language Learner has made adequate progress, as measured by the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) (Californians Together).

Percentage of students who meet or exceed English Language Arts standards, disaggregated by English-Only students (EO), English Learners (EL), Initially Fluent-English Proficient (IFEP), and Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient (RFEP) (Californians Together).

Gap in English Language Arts performance between English-Only students and multilingual students.

Percent of multilingual learners who meet or exceed standards in English Language Arts (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who participate in a Dual Language Immersion or Developmental Bilingual Programs (Californians Together).

Percent of students who participate in programs leading to proficiency in two or more languages (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who are chronically absent (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who have a breakfast meal before school. (Tracked through student response surveys like the California Healthy Kids Survey) (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who have access to expanded learning opportunities (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who have a caring adult relationship at school. (Tracked through student response surveys like the California Healthy Kids Survey) (Californians Together).

Percent of multilingual learners who experience chronic sadness or hopelessness in school (tracked through student response surveys like the California Healthy Kids Survey) (Californians Together).

Number of bilingual teacher preparation programs at state-approved education preparation programs (Californians Together).

Percent of bilingual preparation programs offering the PK-3 ECE Specialist Credential who offer a bilingual authorization (Californians Together).

Percent of teachers who have access to a supportive school environment and high-quality professional learning that includes designated and integrated English Language Development strategies (Californians Together).

Spanish-speaking children enter kindergarten with many social strengths that are the result of positive parenting practices that need to be acknowledged and enhanced (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Maintaining home language

Supporting multilingual students to maintain their home language while building English proficiency is an effective strategy that yields positive outcomes on many indicators and also ensures an asset-based approach to language acquisition (Californians Together).

Bilingualism is framed as an asset. All young children are capable of learning two languages. Becoming bilingual has long-term cognitive, academic, social, cultural, and economic benefits (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Young multilingual learners require systematic support for the continued development for their home language (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Loss of the home language has potential negative long-term consequences for the multilingual child’s academic, social, and emotional development, as well as for the family dynamics (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Teachers and programs can adopt effective strategies to support home language development even when the teachers are monolingual English speakers (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Research shows that bilingualism and biliteracy are assets in many aspects of learning and cognitive development. And strong language and literacy skills in a child’s home language can facilitate the development of those same skills in English. For example, in one recent study, students formerly classified as ELs who achieved English language proficiency by the eighth grade did as well as their peers on reading tests, and better in terms of math, attendance, and class grades (Bellwether).

Pre-schools and schools are responsive to different EL strengths, needs and identities, and support the socio-emotional health and development of English learners. Programs value and build upon the cultural and linguistic assets students bring to their education in safe and affirming school climates. Educators value and build strong family, community, and school partnerships (California English Learner Roadmap State Board of Education Policy).

Educators talk with families about their language and learning goals for their child. Ask families to share their thoughts on the child’s bilingual development and how this may relate to their goals (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide opportunities for multilingual children who speak the same home language to serve as peer support for each other (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators integrate reading, writing, listening, and speaking in both languages to develop bilingualism and biliteracy (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators make sure to use content to build both the home language and English, so that ML children develop content understanding in both languages (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide explicit opportunities for children to compare and contrast the two languages to support cross-language transfer of learning (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers invite children to be experts and share their home language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers invite parents and other speakers of the home language to join classroom activities to speak, tell, and share stories, and to read in the home language (for example, invite parents to read a story in the home language before reading the same story in English) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Instruction

Extra support for English language learners to help them master the language and content, including extra time for individualized instruction and materials that are relevant (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

School and system schedules provide the appropriate amount of time for language instruction educational program (LIEP) services such as bilingual education or English language development (ELD) programs and services (Instruction Partners).

Dual-language programs are an effective approach to improving academic achievement for multilingual children, while providing benefits to native English speakers (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Research suggests that many of the same Science of Reading instructional principles regarding the knowledge and skills that enable monolingual children to learn to read in English also serve multilingual children well. Multilingual children also need tailored instruction and attention to continue developing in areas such as oral language skills, home language and literacy development, and culturally/linguistically responsive texts, materials, and assessments (Bellwether).

A growing body of evidence suggests that the combination of strong foundational skills, complex texts, and integrated knowledge building captured by Science of Reading could accelerate achievement among student groups that have not been well served by other modes of instruction. However, because this is not a single approach or curriculum, specific results are difficult to quantify (Bellwether).

Providing extensive and varied vocabulary instruction including in academic vocabulary. Evidence finds that explicit vocabulary instruction supports English language learners’ development of reading comprehension once they have mastered the foundational literacy skills. Aspiring teachers should learn to provide vocabulary instruction that includes “multiple exposures to target words over several days and across reading, writing, and speaking opportunities” with “student-friendly” definitions of words (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Providing intensive small-group reading interventions that include English language development. This instruction should focus on the core components of reading and rely on explicit, direct instruction. This small-group instruction should include opportunities for students to engage in discussions using the words in the texts they are reading, respond to and pose questions, learn the meanings of words and become familiar with the phonemes within the words being used, practice reading words and sentences, and receive clear feedback from teachers to correct errors (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Scheduling regular peer-assisted learning opportunities. English language learners of varying language proficiency should work together several times a week on structured academic tasks (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Help multilingual children join fully in group learning settings by providing opportunities to have a role in small and large groups (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Instruction that capitalizes on students’ home language, knowledge and cultural assets could include providing a preview of content in a child’s home language, reading stories in the child’s home language, offering definitions of vocabulary in the home language, helping children learn cognates for English words (for example, asking Spanish-speaking students to identify cognates like “mysterioso” and “mysterious”), and connecting key concepts with children’s prior knowledge (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Providing visual and verbal supports to help students understand core content. These could include instructional videos, visuals, and graphic organizers. English learners benefit more than their English-proficient peers from the teacher providing students with information rather than engaging them in the creation of information (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Schools increase access to rigorous coursework for multilingual learners and ensure supports are in place (such as access to high quality instructional materials that center multilingual learner needs) (Californians Together).

Dual language and bilingual education models use both the home language and English as the languages of instruction and have the explicit goal of developing bilingualism. Bilingual models vary in how much time is allocated to each language, but the use of the home language for instruction across these models shows a valuing of and commitment to home language development. Research suggests that dual language education has positive effects on children’s home language and English language skills, as well as other learning domains. It takes a great level of commitment for a program to adopt a dual language model, including administrator/program commitment, qualified bilingual staff, intensive training, materials, and resources (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide opportunities for multilingual children to build friendships and relationships and to meaningfully participate in peer social interactions (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide adequate time for informal learning and exploration to help develop relationships within the classroom (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

In the classroom, educators include labels and other functional print in the home language. Make sure home language print is on an equal footing with English print (for example, make labels the same size in both languages) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

In the classroom, educators provide books and materials in the home language that depict the cultural and linguistic background of children in a positive light. Make sure children of each language and cultural background can see themselves represented in the classroom (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

In the classroom, educators display and provide culturally relevant materials, including family pictures and cultural items from children’s homes. Include families in helping to select books, objects, and materials to display in the classrooms (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide language-rich environments to support each language by providing high-quality, responsive, and extended talk in each language, including longer utterances with varied vocabulary, a mix of open-ended and scaffolding questions, providing child-friendly definitions for new or unfamiliar words, recasting or repeating an erroneous utterance in a corrected form, and engaging in back-and-forth exchanges (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide language-rich environments to support each language by asking questions in each language, including a mix of open- and closed-ended questions, to elicit talk from children (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide language-rich environments to support each language by repeating and elaborate/expand on children’s talk in each language, for example, with adjectives, adverbs, or clauses that are related to the topic the child is discussing (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide language-rich environments to support each language by incorporating songs, rhymes, and chants in each language, and connect them to content learning (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide explicit vocabulary instruction in each language by selecting commonly used academic words (e.g., observe, demonstrate, cycle, evaluate, conflict) and content-specific words or phrases (e.g., energy, habitat, food chain, law, freedom) from the focus of study and incorporate them in instruction (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide explicit vocabulary instruction in each language by explicitly teaching words through multiple modalities of writing, speaking, and listening (e.g., vocabulary picture cards, word maps, visual aids, props, word walls, gestures, drawings) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide explicit vocabulary instruction in each language by providing hands-on, inquiry-based experiences (such as designing and carrying out experiments) to help give language meaning and purpose (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators build foundational reading skills in each language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators conduct phonological awareness activities that explicitly teach children to hear individual segments of sounds in words, such as using manipulatives to represent sound units (relevant for letter-based writing systems only) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators help children identify letters and develop awareness of letter-sound connections, that is, phonics (relevant for letter-based writing systems only) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide instruction on book concepts and knowledge (particularly in preschool to support emergent literacy) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators use shared reading activities to build oral language and reading comprehension skills in each language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators read text aloud with appropriate speed and expression to promote oral reading fluency (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators conduct pre- and post-reading activities and discussions in each language to foster critical thinking skills and reading comprehension (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators engage in interactive (dialogic) reading by asking open-ended questions, prompting children to retell narratives, and modeling and supporting language and content comprehension skills (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators introduce and explain new vocabulary words before, during, or after reading.

Educators read text in the home language first, and then follow up by reading the text in English over a period of time (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide consistent opportunities and appropriate scaffolds to engage children with writing in each language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators practice developmentally appropriate writing activities (pre-writing in preschool) in each language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide language-based supports (e.g., graphic organizers, sentence starters) to help children begin and develop writing (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide writing assignments that are content-based and help develop academic language as well as writing skills (elementary only) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators develop student writing for a variety of genres and audiences, using appropriate content, organization, and style (elementary only) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers introduce key vocabulary words in the home language that are related to the content being taught, prior to teaching in English (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers use cognates (e.g., art/arte, computer/computadora in Spanish) to emphasize connections between English and the home language (if applicable to the home language) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers use visual cues, gestures, and signals to accompany speech (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers use instructional tools (e.g., videos, graphic organizers) to develop language in context (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers teach word learning strategies (e.g., use of context clues, word parts, cognates) to help children learn the meaning of English words (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers conduct supplemental small group instruction, in the home language and/or English, with multilingual children of similar proficiency levels to help support content learning (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers preview concepts in the home language to activate and build background knowledge, prior to teaching new content in English (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers permit multilingual children longer wait times to allow them to process speech (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers introduce longer phrases and sentences and offer less support as ML’s English proficiency grows (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers provide children opportunities to work in pairs or small groups with English proficient peers who can serve as language models (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers provide hands-on, inquiry-based experiences to help give content and subject matter meaning and purpose (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers preview and review learning material (e.g., books, vocabulary) in the home language before teaching it in English, to activate and connect to background knowledge children have about the topic from their home language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers provide targeted small group instruction for ML children to facilitate learning of new content and targeted support of language and literacy (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers strategically organize multilingual children in pairs or small groups with same language peers to support content learning (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers provide multiple opportunities for children to engage with and practice content area vocabulary and concepts (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers co-create language and content learning goals for children with co-teachers and parents (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Progress Monitoring

Teachers need training on which assessments are best to use for English language learners, how to conduct formative assessments, and how to use data from these assessments to guide instruction for English language learners. They also must be able to distinguish between reading problems and issues related to oral language development (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Schools and local organizations set goals for multilingual learner outcomes, track progress, and invest in adequate resources (Californians Together).

English learners engage in intellectually rich, developmentally appropriate learning experiences that foster high levels of English proficiency. These experiences integrate language development, literacy, and content learning as well as provide access for comprehension and participation through native language instruction and scaffolding. English learners have meaningful access to a full standards-based and relevant curriculum and the opportunity to develop proficiency in English and other languages (California English Learner Roadmap State Board of Education Policy).

Educators assess children in both their home language and English to understand their full range of skills (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers use assessment results to inform instruction based on student English language development progress. Use assessment to inform strategic grouping and small group instruction (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers draw from a variety of formative assessment tools (e.g., observations of child’s oral language, portfolios of written work, comprehension-focused questions or tasks) to monitor progress (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers use summative assessment tools (e.g., a standardized tool that measures a specific skill) to determine if children are adequately learning content and progressing in language development (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers assess children in their home language. If you do not speak the home language, try to find interpreters to help conduct assessments (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Teachers learn about the process of second language acquisition in order to help assess and monitor multilingual children’s progress in language development (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School Programs and Partnerships

Schools expand opportunities for students to participate in bilingual pathways and programs (Californians Together).

Schools center the needs of multilingual learners (in particular those who are newcomers and socioeconomically disadvantaged) in planning and implementing school policies/programs (e.g., policies that keep students engaged and motivated, that make sure they are healthy and well, and that give them learning opportunities outside of school hours.) (Californians Together).

While there are other types of multilingual programs that schools offer to serve multilingual students, the benefits of Dual Language Immersion (DLI) programs are that multilingual students share a classroom with fluent English speakers and learn from each other’s languages and cultures. Developmental Bilingual and Transitional Bilingual programs are limited to just English Learners, while One-Way Immersion programs can only serve students from one language group (which might include ELs or English speakers). Moreover, Transitional Bilingual programs do not have the goal of language and academic proficiency in English and a second language (Californians Together).

Dual-language immersion (DLI) programs provide academic instruction in multiple languages in order to help students succeed academically while becoming fully bilingual and biliterate. Two-way DLI programs are linguistically integrated, enrolling roughly equal shares of native speakers of English and native speakers of the program’s non-English partner language. Research suggests that these linguistically integrated two-way DLI programs are the best way to support ELs’ long-term linguistic and academic development (The Century Foundation).

Local leaders build partnerships between county offices of education, districts, and colleges and universities to recruit bilingual staff and students into the teacher profession (Californians Together).

Alignment and Articulation Within and Across Systems: English learners experience a coherent, articulated and aligned set of practices and pathways across grade levels and educational segments beginning with a strong foundation in early childhood and continuing through to reclassification, graduation and higher education. These pathways foster the skills, language(s), literacy and knowledge students need for college- and career-readiness and participation in a global, diverse multilingual 21st century world (California English Learner Roadmap State Board of Education Policy).

School Leadership

School administrators create a site-wide culture that values dual language learning and the engagement of families to support dual language learning (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators should be able to articulate the school’s language and learning goals for ML children (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators establish a program-wide approach to meet language and learning goals for ML children and ensure there is clarity among all staff and other school partners about the research-based language program model in use (check out Head Start’s Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center resources on Planned Language Approach for ideas on how to do this in your program) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators give teachers access to coaches to help them plan and use new teaching strategies (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators ensure that system-level approaches and instructional practices align with state-wide policies that support ML children (e.g., guiding principles of the California English Learner Roadmap) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators support teachers in participating in professional development (e.g., paid time for PD outside of the classroom, substitute support, embedded support) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators provide opportunities for teachers who speak a language other than English to receive PD (or additional support) in their preferred language (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators provide supports for teaching assistants and paraprofessionals (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators provide classroom materials connected to the content in a variety of languages (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators provide translation and interpretation support, such as community members, advocates, and learning tools (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educator Expertise, Training and Support

Schools ensure all educators receive professional learning regarding English Language Development. All educators are prepared to deliver integrated English Language Development within instruction. Schools promote collaboration between content area and EL departments in delivery of professional learning (Californians Together).

Each level of the school system (state, county, district, school, pre-school) has leaders and educators who are knowledgeable of and responsive to the strengths and needs of English learners and their communities, and utilize valid assessment and other data systems that inform instruction and continuous improvement; resources and tiered support is provided to ensure strong programs and build the capacity of teachers and staff to build on the strengths and meet the needs of English learners (California English Learner Roadmap State Board of Education Policy).

Teachers who are not proficient in the child’s home language can still take important steps to support it. Learning and using key words in the home language and providing opportunities for children to hear their home language in class shows respect and interest in the children’s home languages and makes children feel valued (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Professional development for teachers should help teachers build knowledge of dual language development and promote an asset-based view of linguistic diversity. This includes building knowledge about multilingual language acquisition; evidence-based instructional strategies; building relationships with multilingual children; cultural competence, diversity, asset-based instruction, and inclusion; and developing partnerships and engaging with multilingual families (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Professional development for teachers should teach instructional strategies in context (through modeling in the classroom, exemplar videos, lesson plans, etc.) (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Professional development should allow teachers to engage in opportunities for feedback and reflection of their own practice with a coach, instructional leader, or master teacher (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Professional development should give teachers time to collaborate with other teachers (e.g., through professional learning communities) to learn, discuss, and reflect on practice (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators build their own understanding of dual language development, supporting ML children, and an asset-based view of linguistic diversity (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

School administrators learn how to support teachers in implementing strategies in the classroom (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Family Partnerships

Educators engage individually with multilingual children in a warm and inclusive way. Take time to build trust, respect, and strong relationships with children and their families.

Educators gather information on each child’s language/cultural background from parents upon enrollment. Note that when collecting information from families, educators should gather information that will be helpful for informing instruction. Avoid questions that may be sensitive, such as those concerning citizenship or immigration status (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide families with information on home language development and the benefits of bilingualism and encourage them to continue to speak their home language to their children (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators partner with families to provide varied opportunities for them to come to the classroom to share their language and culture (Multilingual Learning Toolkit).

Educators provide parents with children’s learning activities to support home language development and connect the curriculum with learning at home (Multilingual Learning Toolkit)

Educators partner with families in identifying topics or ideas that are of interest to the child and incorporate these in curriculum planning (Multilingual Learning Toolkit)

Policymakers can ensure that ELs have fair opportunities to access Dual-language immersion programs by locating them in schools with significant EL populations, reserving seats for native speakers of non-English languages, and expanding the number of available DLI seats by investing in growing programs to train more bilingual teachers (The Century Foundation).

California’s reading legislation is an example of one that recognizes and responds to the literacy needs of bilingual and multilingual students. First, CA AB 130 is committed to “building and strengthening capacity to increase bilingual and biliteracy proficiency” by implementing effective language acquisition programs and interventions. Through CA AB 320, educators will utilize “ongoing and diagnostic techniques that inform teaching, assessment, and early interventions.” Such interventions include, the hiring of literacy coaches to support struggling students and establishing biliteracy support programs during after school, weekend, and summer hours. Additionally, California will provide professional development to principals and teacher leaders to lead evidence-based reading instruction for English learners. Bilingual reading specialists will be utilized to support English learner programs (Shanker Institute).

Next, CA AB 181 is dedicated to family engagement and has created different programs to support this desire. The literacy and biliteracy home visiting program allows “promotora” or family literacy outreach specialists to engage with families to “best support their pupils and every family member in reaching their literacy goals.” Family literacy plans are another tool used to create biliteracy goals, benchmarks, and roles for all family members (Shanker Institute).

Finally, CA AB 181 addresses the significance of culturally relevant texts. The state’s goal is to establish school and classroom libraries that include diverse book collections in English and other languages (Shanker Institute).

State leaders, including legislators, state agencies, and boards set clear statewide goals for multilingual learner outcomes and track progress towards these goals (Californians Together).

States improve tracking and reporting of public data regarding multilingual students and their outcomes. This includes high school graduation and outcomes for Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) students, equitable access to rigorous coursework, access to bilingual programs, and teacher supply and attrition (Californians Together).

States invest in the expansion of Bilingual Pathways and programs (Californians Together).

States invest in community schools and initiatives that support the whole child. This includes ensuring that investments center the needs of ELs, support bilingualism and multilingualism, and are aligned to state goals for multilingual student achievement (Californians Together).

States support legislation that address the bilingual teacher shortage. Invest in proven programs, such as Bilingual Teacher Residencies and the Bilingual Teacher Professional Development Program (BTPDP) and remove barriers to a bilingual authorization (Californians Together).

States implement more coherent and transparent academic accountability systems (as described in the 2021 brief The Accountability System English Learners Deserve). This will require increasing transparency by separating ELs and RFEPs from the EL academic indicators and in any proposed growth model, setting high expectations for ELs in the English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI) and other indicators in order to ensure that school districts set clear and ambitious goals to address the needs of ELs (Californians Together).

In 2022, the California Department of Education launched the Biliteracy Pathway Recognition awards. These awards include the following recognitions: (a) The Biliteracy Program Participation Recognition. Available to students enrolled in programs leading to biliteracy in preschool, kindergarten, elementary, and middle school; (b) Home Language Development Recognition. Available to students with a home language other than English in preschool, kindergarten, elementary, and middle school, who demonstrate that they are continuing to develop the home language by engaging in age-appropriate activities in the home language; (c) Biliteracy Attainment Recognition. Available to students at the end of elementary school and the end of middle school. Awarded to students who meet specific proficiency criteria in English and one or more languages in addition to English, aligned with the criteria for the SSB (Californians Together).

The Seal of Biliteracy is an award given by a school, school district or county office of education in recognition of students who have studied and attained proficiency in two or more languages by high school graduation. The Seal of Biliteracy takes the form of a gold seal that appears on the transcript or diploma of the graduating senior and is a statement of accomplishment for future employers and for college admissions. In addition to the Seal of Biliteracy that marks attainment of high level mastery of two or more languages, schools and districts are also instituting Bilingual Pathway Awards, recognizing significant steps towards developing biliteracy along a student’s trajectory from preschool into high school (Californians Together).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

School’s contributions to student outcomes

Average per-grade change in English Language Arts achievement between third and eighth grades. Well-performing public schools support children’s cognitive and social development, providing the foundation for postsecondary and career success (Urban Institute).

Schools’ contributions to student outcomes, including achievement, attendance, social-emotional learning, college enrollment, and earnings, using value-added models. Note that value-added and other growth models require linking schools to student outcome data (such as test scores from two or more academic years, so growth can be measured). In places that do not already calculate value-added or similar measures, framework users should consult with experts to implement this indicator, as there are different approaches to computing value-added that have different technical and practical considerations. In practice, many states use other approaches to incorporating student growth data as part of their school accountability systems, which vary in validity and comparability as measures of schools’ contributions to student outcomes. Users should also carefully consider the results of value-added measures so as not to reinforce existing inequalities by “explaining away” inter-group differences that might be addressed by system conditions or interventions (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Teacher’s contributions to student learning growth

Percentage of instructors demonstrating above average contributions to student learning, as measured by student growth on state standardized tests or other outcomes (for example, using value-added models or student growth percentiles). Note that value-added and other growth models require linking instructors to student outcome data (such as test scores from two or more academic years, so growth can be measured). The EW Framework cautions against using value-added data as the only measure of teaching effectiveness and recommends also including measures based on classroom observation and student survey data. When used for high-stakes accountability, measures of teachers’ contributions to student learning may have unintended consequences (for example, leading to practices such as “teaching to the test”) (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Collective teacher efficacy: The collective belief of teachers in their ability to positively affect students. The effect size (1.57) demonstrates a strong correlation to student achievement (Hattie).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Student perceptions of teaching

Students’ perceptions of their teacher’s effectiveness, using a survey instrument such as the Pedagogical Effectiveness subscale of the Panorama Student Survey, the Tripod Student Survey, the Ambitious Instruction and Supportive Environment domains of the 5Essentials Survey, or the Elevate survey’s Feedback for Growth, Meaningful Work, Student Voice, Teacher Caring, Learning Goals, Supportive Teaching, and Well-organized Class scales (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Question 10: Do students have effective, representative teachers and leaders?

Why it matters

Effective, representative teachers and leaders are essential for advancing third grade reading outcomes, as they shape instructional quality, school culture and equitable access to literacy success. Research consistently shows that strong school leadership and effective teaching are among the most significant factors influencing student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004; Kane et al., 2016; Bryk, et. al).

Teachers who implement evidence-based literacy instruction and use data-driven approaches ensure that all students develop foundational reading skills (National Reading Panel, 2000). At the same time, school leaders play a critical role in creating the conditions for success by providing high-quality professional development, aligning resources with literacy goals and fostering a culture of accountability and continuous improvement (Steiner, 2020). Research on principals’ impact on student achievement highlights this influence, showing that highly effective principals can increase student learning by the equivalent of two to seven additional months in a given school year, whereas ineffective principals can negatively impact achievement by the same margin (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Additionally, representative teachers and leaders — those who reflect the diversity of their student populations — help build stronger connections with families and communities, enhance student engagement, and support culturally responsive instruction, all of which contribute to improved literacy outcomes (Grissom, Rodriguez, & Kern, 2021). By investing in highly effective, diverse educators and leaders, schools can drive meaningful improvements in early literacy and close achievement gaps.

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Effective program and school leadership

Percentage of school leaders rated as effective, using an evaluation system that includes multiple measures, such as the Administrator Evaluation component of the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM) (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Staff surveys that can be used to measure effective school leadership include the Effective Leaders subcomponent of the UChicago 5E’s survey instrument, Panorama Teacher and Staff Survey, or The New Teacher Project’s (TNTP) Instructional Culture Insight Survey. However, no research has emerged at this point to show that staff surveys are valid and reliable measures of school leader effectiveness, and survey measures run the risk of offering a biased or potentially politicized rating of a leader, underscoring the importance of examining multiple measures (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Ensure program directors and school principals have the capacity to provide instructional leadership that supports effective teaching (Alliance for Early Success).

Louisiana’s Content Leaders, who are local educators with the knowledge, skills, and resources to provide high-quality, content-rich, and curriculum specific professional development to teachers in their school (Louisiana Department of Education).

Louisiana’s Mentor Teachers, who are local educators who have the knowledge and skills to effectively coach and support new and resident teachers in their districts (Louisiana Department of Education).

District or LEA leadership prioritizes early grades reading in system level goals and priorities, like Eddie Rangel (CEO) and Matthew Rooney (Chief School Officer) of Adelante Schools in Indiana (Relay/GSE).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Education retention and tenure

Teacher retention: Percentage of teachers who return to teaching in the same school from year to year. Educator retention can be computed using administrative records from districts’ or states’ staff data management systems linking teachers and principals to schools from one year to the next (Education-to-Workforce Framework)

School leader tenure: Percentage of school leaders who have served in their current positions for less than two years, two to three years, and four or more years. For school leaders, the Education-to-Workforce Framework recommends examining their tenure in the same school. A recommended best practice is to disaggregate retention by measures of educator effectiveness, such as those based on teacher performance ratings or value-added scores, to better assess the impact of staff turnover (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

North Carolina’s Teacher Working Conditions Survey offers a systematic way to capture teachers’ perspectives on the conditions in which they work (NC TWC Survey).

States and/or districts have career progression pathways to support the retention of highly-effective teachers, such as Louisiana’s Content-Leaders and Mentor Teacher roles (Louisiana Department of Education).

States and/or districts have differentiated compensation structures that provide higher rates of pay for teachers demonstrating the most effectiveness, such as Texas’ Teacher Incentive Allotment (TEA Teacher Incentive Allotment).

Contributing factor

Teacher leadership

Percentage of teacher leaders rated effective based on multiple measures of performance (National Education Association).

Percentage of teacher leaders who occupy hybrid roles (National Education Association).

Percentage of teacher leaders with a leadership endorsement/certificate (National Education Association).

Presence of an educator shortage (National Education Association).

Teacher leaders who are experts in the Science of Reading and the literacy curriculum play a role in the coaching and development of literacy instruction for a group of teachers.

Districts have pathways for teachers who want to remain in their teaching role but make a bigger impact and larger salary. For example, North Carolina’s Advanced Teaching Roles, including the Multi-Classroom Teacher-Leader Role (Department of Public Instruction for the state of North Carolina).

State codifies the Teacher Leadership Competencies and/or other standards for teacher leadership (National Education Association).

State includes a state-level endorsement/certificate for teacher leaders (National Education Association).

State provides resources to complete voluntary national certification and endorsements that promote teacher leadership opportunities (National Education Association).

Contributing factor

Teacher recruiting and hiring

Districts begin cultivation and recruitment a year prior to the present school year (National Education Association).

Districts have plans to recruit and retain accomplished educators (National Education Association).

Districts have plans to recruit educators for shortage areas, such as special education and second language acquisition (National Education Association).

Hiring high quality staff (Results for America).

State tracks educator shortages (National Education Association).

Question 11: Do students have access to curricula aligned to the Science of Reading research and that includes explicit phonics instruction?

Why it matters

Ensuring students have access to curricula aligned with the Science of Reading is essential for building strong foundational literacy skills and achieving third grade reading proficiency. Research shows that effective reading instruction must include explicit, systematic teaching of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). Curricula grounded in these principles provide structured, sequential instruction that prevents learning gaps and supports all students, particularly those at risk for reading difficulties (Moats, 2020).

Studies also highlight that students using high-quality, research-based curricula make greater reading gains than those using inconsistent or less structured programs (Steiner, 2020). Additionally, aligning curricula with the Science of Reading ensures that instruction is data-driven and evidence-based, supporting teachers in delivering effective literacy instruction (Foorman et al., 2016).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Access to quality, culturally responsive curriculum

Schools and instructors use a standards-aligned core course curriculum that meets quality standards (as defined by EdReports) and is culturally relevant, centering the lived experiences and heritage of students’ ethnic or racial backgrounds (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

The school/system uses standards-aligned and coherent curricular materials effectively to facilitate data-driven instruction anchored in the Science of Reading (Instruction Partners).

Tier 1 curricular materials are anchored in the Science of Reading and include a systematic and explicit foundational skills program as well as content-rich reading materials that support knowledge building (Instruction Partners).

The Tier 1 curriculum, assessments, and instructional resources in use are closely aligned (Instruction Partners).

When and if appropriate, additional culturally and/or linguistically relevant materials are used alongside curricular materials to support students in making personal connections (Instruction Partners).

Tiered intervention programs in use are structured and systematic; they amplify and accelerate learning from Tier 1 materials (Instruction Partners).

Curriculum-embedded assessments and materials are used seamlessly to design whole- and small-group learning experiences that move every student toward reading proficiency (Instruction Partners).

The school/system uses quality data and assessment resources consistently, cohesively, and strategically to drive instructional decision making for all students (Instruction Partners).

Implement developmentally and culturally appropriate early learning standards that reflect approaches to learning, social/emotional, physical, cognitive, and language development; and build foundational skills in literacy, math, science, social studies, and the arts (Alliance for Early Success).

Schools adopt content-rich, developmentally appropriate curricula linked to standards and assessments (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Legislation in an estimated 38 states (as of January 2024) establishes requirements for the type of curricula and materials schools can use to identify reading difficulties (Bellwether).

Tennessee’s Tennessee Literacy Success Act (2021) requires English language arts textbooks and materials to come from a state-approved list with a focus on foundational skills and knowledge building. It requires districts and schools to develop foundational literacy skills plans (Bellwether).

Georgia’s Georgia Early Literacy Act (2023) has the state board of education establish standards to measure literacy, approve a list of curricula for K-3 reading, and has districts adopt high-quality materials as designated by the state (Bellwether).

Indiana’s Science of Reading act (2023) has school districts and public charter schools adopt curricula aligned with the Science of Reading and students’ reading proficiency; they may not adopt curricula based on the three-cueing model. (In three-cueing, students use “cues” in the text to make educated guesses about unknown words. The three common sources of cues are context, sentence structure, and letters.) (Bellwether).

Connecticut’s Right to Read act (2021) requires all districts to implement early literacy reading curricula that are evidenced based and focused on oral language, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (Bellwether).

A high-quality curriculum not only provides a clear framework for teachers, but also ensures coherence across grades and schools. It is essential that legislators promote the selection and periodic review of evidence-based instructional materials and resources in districts. This will help determine if they meet students’ needs or if additional materials and supports are necessary. Don’t remove resources, even flawed ones, without providing educators with effective alternatives first. (Model state: Delaware) (Shanker Institute).

Contributing factor

Assessments

The school/system uses quality data and assessment resources consistently, cohesively, and strategically to drive instructional decision making for all students (Instruction Partners).

The assessment system in place includes a universal screener that assesses all students’ proficiency on nationally-normed, grade-level benchmarks at least three times per year (Instruction Partners).

The assessment system in place includes progress monitoring tools to determine how students are progressing toward their individual goals and student growth targets based on nationally-normed benchmarks (Instruction Partners).

The assessment system in place includes a diagnostic assessment that pinpoints the specific skills that students have mastered and/or where they need further instruction and practice (Instruction Partners).

The assessment system in place includes formative assessments (e.g., from the curriculum, anecdotal records) to assess students’ mastery of what is being taught. Note that it is important to consider that additional or alternative assessment data may be necessary to yield a holistic picture of students’ knowledge and skills, particularly for students in priority groups. For instance, a test given in English may not capture the language skills of a Spanish-speaking student; providing them an assessment in Spanish may offer educators a more accurate picture of their skills and knowledge (Instruction Partners).

Assessment and evaluation honor multilingual learners’ (MLs’) primary languages and current English proficiency levels. There is a written policy to ensure that MLs are not held back in the curriculum sequence or small-group work based on primary language influence or current English proficiency level (Instruction Partners).

Each student has clear, individual learning goals and learning targets that teachers, students, and families/caregivers understand (Instruction Partners).

There is a clear and efficient data cycle process in place that supports leaders and teachers in collecting and analyzing student data as well as adjusting instruction based on what is and is not working (Instruction Partners).

When analyzing student data, all educators providing or supporting early literacy instruction are included (e.g., K–2 and language development teachers) (Instruction Partners).

Student data is gathered from multiple forms of assessment (e.g., universal screener, progress monitoring, curriculum assessment, teachers’ observation notes about skills individual students have and have not yet mastered) (Instruction Partners).

Data is analyzed collaboratively from each form of assessment alongside student goals to determine what is working and what may need to be refined to support students in moving toward skill mastery (Instruction Partners).

Data analysis adjusts tier placement for students based on clear entry and exit criteria for intervention with an emphasis on exiting students as flexibly and quickly as possible (Instruction Partners).

Student data is disaggregated and analyzed by demographics; team members use this data to ensure that the needs of students in priority groups are centered when making instructional decisions (Instruction Partners).

Families and caregivers are kept up-to-date on their child’s progress toward goals and play an active role in supporting their child’s journey to becoming a skilled reader (Instruction Partners).

Ensure child assessment tools are developmentally, culturally, and linguistically appropriate (Alliance for Early Success).

Schools implement appropriate, comparable instruments for measuring results along the continuum from birth through age 8 that are based on common standards for early childhood programs and practitioners (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

As of January 2024, Legislation in approximately 45 states establishes requirements for the types of assessments schools can use to identify reading difficulties or mandates a process districts must use to select assessments (Bellwether).

Connecticut’s Right to Read act (2021) establishes approved reading assessments to track progress (Bellwether).

Tennessee’s policy on Universal Reading Screeners: All students in grades K-3 are screened three times annually to identify reading deficiencies. The state provides a free option — the Tennessee Universal Reading Screener — and districts can choose from a list of approved universal reading screeners to determine whether any student is struggling with specific reading skills (SCORE Tennessee Policy Pillars).

Question 12: Do students attend school in systems with adequate funding to support curricula, professional learning and ongoing coaching needed to implement the Science of Reading?

Why it matters

Adequate funding supports equal access to curricula and professional learning aligned with the Science of Reading, which enables the improvement of literacy outcomes for all students. Research shows that high-quality, evidence-based curricula — those grounded in the Science of Reading — require investment in both resources and training for educators (National Reading Panel, 2000; Moats, 2020). Without sufficient funding, schools may struggle to purchase comprehensive, standards-aligned materials or provide teachers with ongoing professional development necessary to implement them effectively (Steiner, 2020).

Funding also supports equitable access to these resources, ensuring that schools in underserved or underfunded areas can access the same high-quality curricula and professional learning opportunities as those in more affluent districts (Chingos & Whitehurst, 2012). Investment inprofessional learning is especially important, as teachers need to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to deliver explicit, systematic reading instruction, and ongoing professional development ensures that instructional practices remain aligned with the latest research (Foorman et al., 2016).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Expenditures per student

Per pupil expenditures. For elementary and secondary schools, data are reported annually at the state, district, and school levels through the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Per Pupil Expenditure Transparency website. Disparities in funding can be assessed vertically at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as horizontally between schools within the same district or postsecondary institutions within the same state (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Equity Factor, a measure that indicates variance in per-pupil funding within a state (see this brief by New America for more information) (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Funding that is linked to compliance with common quality standards and is flexible, blendable, and sufficient for the continuum of services and supports needed to get children ready for school and to provide school experiences that help them become strong readers (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

Adequate school funding to ensure access to the resources that afford every child the opportunity to learn (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

State has an independent body of stakeholders that includes active pre-K through grade 12 educators and administrators who annually assess if state funding is sufficient to provide all students the opportunity to meet rigorous academic standards (National Education Association).

Districts implement measures to broaden their tax base (National Education Association).

Districts use “pupil weights” in their base formula to adjust for diverse student needs (National Education Association).

State funds local efforts to diversify revenue streams (National Education Association).

Passage of voter-approved children’s funds at local levels (Children’s Funding Project).

State implements measures to broaden its tax base (National Education Association).

Access to resources: School finance equity (Birth to Grade 3 Indicator Framework).

Question 13: Do students have access to teachers trained, coached and supported to teach the Science of Reading?

Why it matters

Teachers who are trained in the Science of Reading and evidence-based practices that develop students’ skills in each of the five pillars of reading are better equipped to deliver high-quality instruction, identify students’ individual needs and provide targeted interventions (Moats, 2020). Research shows that when teachers receive ongoing coaching and support, they are more likely to implement effective practices consistently, leading to improved student outcomes (Steiner, 2020). By investing in the professional development of teachers to ensure they are skilled in the Science of Reading, schools can enhance the quality of literacy instruction, improve student achievement and close gaps in reading proficiency, particularly for students from underserved communities.

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Teacher credentials and teacher preparation

Percentage of kindergarten teachers that have passed a pre-service performance assessment prior to obtaining their initial license (National Education Association).

Percentage of teacher preparation programs covering the five components of scientifically-based reading instruction. (Data source: National Council on Teacher Quality Reviews) (Bellwether).

Teacher preparation programs dedicate adequate course time to teaching the core components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) or assessing candidates in the core components. The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) recommends preparation programs dedicate at least seven instructional hours (slightly more than two weeks of course time) to phonemic awareness, eight instructional hours to phonics, four instructional hours to fluency, six instructional hours to vocabulary, and 9 instructional hours to comprehension. The minimum number of instructional hours needed to address the core concepts for each component was determined based on feedback from NCTQ’s Expert Advisory Panel and the results from an Open Comment Survey (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Teacher preparation programs measure candidates using objective measures of knowledge, including tests, quizzes, and written graded assignments (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Teacher preparation programs give aspiring teachers opportunities to practice providing instruction, in a simulated or real classroom setting, or opportunities to practice giving an assessment. In teacher preparation, practice takes many forms, such as one-on-one tutoring with a student, administering a mock assessment to fellow teacher candidates, or conducting a lesson during a field experience (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Exemplary teacher preparation programs equip aspiring teachers to support a diverse range of students in learning to read, including English language learners, struggling readers (such as students with dyslexia), and students who speak language varieties other than mainstream English (e.g., African American English). These programs emphasize structured literacy approaches, incorporating direct, explicit instruction in the five components of reading, screening and progress monitoring assessments, and multi-tiered systems of support to address reading difficulties (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).(NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Percentage of preparation program graduates surveyed indicating satisfaction with their preparedness to serve as the teacher-of-record (National Education Association).

Districts partner with teacher preparation programs on teacher residencies and induction (National Education Association).

Preparation programs survey graduates about their preparedness to serve as the teacher-of-record and report their response rates (National Education Association).

Preparation programs use pre-service performance assessments to determine candidate preparedness prior to program completion and/or initial licensure (National Education Association).

Preparation programs work with local school districts to recruit high-achieving high school graduates to pursue careers in education (National Education Association).

State leaders set specific, explicit, and comprehensive preparation standards for scientifically based reading instruction. Standards need to explicitly identify what candidates should learn (e.g., prep programs should teach phonemic awareness, why this area is important for children’s reading development and attainment of the alphabetic principle, what common patterns are in the development of phonemic awareness, specific goals of instruction such as blending and segmentation, and how to assess students’ phonemic awareness) (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders hold teacher preparation programs accountable for implementation of scientifically based reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders incorporate a specific evaluation of reading instruction in program renewal or reauthorization processes and take action if programs are not aligned to the state’s standards for scientifically based reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

The state’s reading instruction standards must be explicit and coupled with implementation support (training, feedback, high-quality curricula) and accountability (data and evidence used to inform decisions about program approval) to see widespread results (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders conduct site visits to teacher preparation programs and include literacy experts. Often program approval or reauthorization processes focus on broad program operations. Focusing specifically on the teaching of reading will support the improvement of elementary teacher prep programs as well as early childhood and special education prep programs (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders visit classrooms, talk to teachers and staff, and collect qualitative data to help inform approval decisions for teacher preparation programs (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders make conditional approval of teacher prep programs — with clear timelines and identified areas for improvement — an option. States should consider in their regulations whether conditional approval is an option for the authorizing entity (either the department of education, state board, or higher education commission). While reading could be a weak area for a program, it may have other strengths. Allowing conditional approval, along with clear expectations and strict timelines, can bring about the desired change while permitting the program to operate (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders require a reading licensure test aligned with scientifically based reading instruction for all elementary teachers to earn licensure, and publish the pass rates (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders verify the state-required test is strong and measures candidates’ knowledge of the core components of reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Licensure test requires all elementary teachers — as well as early childhood educators, special education teachers, and reading specialists who instruct PK-5 students — to demonstrate their knowledge of how to teach reading (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

At a minimum, the state should provide data to programs on first-attempt and best-attempt pass rates on reading licensure tests. This will provide feedback to programs on how candidates are doing, and allow programs to track and support improvement efforts (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

State leaders deploy a comprehensive strategy to implement scientifically-based reading instruction and prioritize teacher preparation. Take a comprehensive approach to policy and practice, with an emphasis on teacher preparation that impacts student learning in reading and includes approaches to support struggling readers, English learners, and speakers of language varieties other than mainstream English (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

In addition to holding prep programs accountable for reading instruction, states can build teacher prep capacity through various means, such as inviting teacher prep faculty to join statewide professional development, supporting programs with competitive funding to revise their programs, or creating communities of practice where programs can learn from other exemplary programs as to how they made the transition (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Some states, such as North Carolina and Alabama, have invited external reviewers such as the Barksdale Reading Institute and TPI-US to inspect their teacher preparation programs (e.g., observe courses and interview faculty and teacher candidates) and report on their findings (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

To send an important signal that reading instruction matters, state leaders such as governors, state education chiefs, state board members, and university system leaders should adopt their own platform-specific goals for increasing reading outcomes, set standards for the institutions they lead, and ask their organizations and staff to report on progress toward those goals (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

School districts strategically recruit new hires. To the extent possible, focus hiring efforts on teachers from preparation programs adequately teaching scientifically based reading instruction, or from stronger programs in your region (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Training teachers is expensive. Focusing on hiring from programs already providing a foundation in reading instruction will save a school district money and will better support students’ literacy outcomes (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

School districts should prioritize partnerships for field experiences with programs committed to teaching scientifically based reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Student teaching is an excellent opportunity to hire strong candidates early. Bringing in student teachers from programs providing instruction in scientifically based reading provides an opportunity to hire from this pool early on, and it sends a message to other programs that they need to strengthen their reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

School districts match student teacher candidates to mentor teachers with a proven track record of effectiveness in teaching reading based on the science. Avoid assigning student teachers to teachers who would be poor models of teaching reading or use contrary practices in their instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

School districts provide professional development opportunities for teachers already in the classroom who were not prepared in scientifically based reading instruction practices. While not exhaustive, some resources to consider include LETRS, Neuhaus Education Center, CORE Learning, and Essential Actions: A Handbook for Implementing WIDA’s Framework for English Language Development Standards (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

School districts review, select, and carefully implement high-quality reading curricula approved by the state or other external reviewers and share curriculum resources with teacher preparation partners (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Community advocates, teachers, and parents ask questions and advocate to ensure scientifically based reading instruction is used in local schools (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Community advocates, teachers, and parents send letters to a university’s board of trustees and their district’s school board, or testify at public hearings advocating for professional learning and curricula aligned to scientifically based reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Community advocates, teachers, and parents advocate for adoption — both at the district and state levels — of curricula (including core curricula, intervention programs, and supplemental materials) that provide systematic and explicit reading instruction to teach the five components of scientifically based reading instruction (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Community advocates, teachers, and parents partner with other advocates in the area to learn more about scientifically based reading instruction, find additional resources, and join community efforts to improve your local schools (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Community advocates, teachers, and parents advocate for local schools to focus their hiring practices on teachers who are well prepared and committed to scientifically based reading instruction, especially local preparation programs earning a high grade in the Teacher Prep Review (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Districts mandate successful completion of a residency program prior to obtaining initial licensure (National Education Association).

Preparation programs require school-based experiences beyond a semester of student teaching (National Education Association).

State provides funding for induction programs (National Education Association).

State provides funding for preparation programs to establish residency programs with local school districts (National Education Association).

State provides resources to grow preparation programs in minority-serving institutions (National Education Association).

Investing in hiring, training and retaining a high-quality and diverse workforce of educators (Urban Institute).

As of January 2024, state legislation aimed at improving teacher certification or license renewal. An estimated 17 states require pre-service teachers to pass a test demonstrating knowledge of reading instruction and in-service teachers to earn a credential or pass a test to renew their license (Bellwether).

As of January 2024, state legislation aimed at improving teacher preparation. An estimated 19 states require teacher preparation programs to review course offerings and make changes to bring instructional approaches in line with evidence-based practices (Bellwether).

Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act provided professional development training via Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) to elementary teachers and leaders, as well as included faculty from institutes of higher education on a voluntary basis, to begin to create a common language across the entire education system (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

In 2016, Mississippi began requiring the Foundations of Reading test for all elementary teachers to earn a license, which also provided a common indicator across all programs of whether teacher candidates were obtaining the knowledge and skills they need to teach scientifically based reading instruction. Later, the state factored this data into more frequent program reviews, including annual reports on the percentage of candidates who passed the reading test by number of attempts (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Beginning in 2018, Mississippi, with philanthropic support, provided intense professional learning and support to faculty in prep programs. This support included on-site training modules, texts, and other instructional videos; classroom instruction; one-on-one mentoring; and seminars. Most importantly, the state department of education studied the impact of the professional learning partnership in order to understand continued areas of needed support and to celebrate successes (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

To support sustainability, Mississippi redesigned educator prep program guidelines and program approval requirements to prescribe the 15 credit hours dedicated to literacy, and required the two courses — Early Literacy 1 and Early Literacy 2 — to align with syllabi from the Mississippi Higher Education Literacy Council matrix, which also includes an emphasis on dyslexia and English language learners. Additionally, a third course, Fundamentals of Reading in the Upper Elementary Grades, is also required (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Tennessee’s legislature passed the Tennessee Literacy Success Act in 2021. Among its provisions was one requiring educator prep programs to emphasize an evidence-based, foundational skills approach to teaching (Bellwether).

Georgia’s legislature passed the Georgia Early Literacy Act in 2023. Among its provisions was one requiring teacher certification assessments to be aligned with evidence-based literacy instruction (Bellwether).

Indiana’s legislature passed the Science of Reading in 2023 requiring teacher preparation programs to use curricula that instruct teachers on the Science of Reading. For teachers seeking licenses to teach reading, a portion of their credit hours must be in teaching scientifically-based reading (Bellwether).

In July 2023, Ohio passed legislation mandating a shift to the Science of Reading in public schools, requiring curriculum, teacher training, and reading intervention approaches to align with Science of Reading principles (Ohio Capital Journal).

Indiana’s Science of Reading law requires the Indiana Department of Education to conduct a review of teacher preparation programs to ensure alignment with the Science of Reading (Bellwether).

Connecticut’s legislature passed the Right to Read in 2021 requiring the state’s Department of Education to develop a Center for Literacy Research and Reading Success that focuses on ensuring alignment between reading standards and teacher preparation courses (Bellwether).

In 2012, Colorado passed the READ Act — legislation that focused on changing how current teachers taught reading in schools and moved classroom instruction across the state toward evidence-based practices. The state was unequivocally coming down on the side of scientifically based reading practices, and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) was committed to reflecting that intent in how it reviewed educator preparation (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

In 2016, Colorado’s state board of education issued new literacy standards for elementary teachers, to which preparation programs were required to align their course content. The new standards were aligned to scientifically based reading instruction and represented an explicit directive to prep programs to update their coursework to align to evidence-based practices (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Developing an effective teacher workforce by prioritizing teacher education programs rooted in evidence-based reading instruction (Shanker Institute).

Utah’s reading instruction legislation calls for a statewide literacy panel. This panel is designed to work with educator preparation programs, university teacher preparation program faculty, deans of education and literacy leadership fellows to advance the Science of Reading and the Science of Reading instruction (Shanker Institute).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Teacher experience

Percentage of teachers with less than one year, one to five years, and more than five years of experience. Research consistently shows that more experienced teachers make greater contributions to student achievement, especially compared to teachers who are early in their careers. After teachers gain about five years of experience, however, the difference between a more or less experienced teacher (that is, one with 10 versus 5 years of experience) is not significant (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Qualified, experienced teachers for all students, especially the students who need them most (Annie E. Casey Foundation).

The Texas Teachers’ Incentive Allotment aims to incentivize effective teachers to work in high-need areas and rural districts by providing funding for districts to reward outstanding teachers with the potential for six-figure salaries, and to support their professional development (Teacher Incentive Allotment Texas).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Representational racial and ethnic diversity of educators

Same-race student-teacher ratio by race/ethnicity (Data sources: Local school, LEA or SEA human resources, administrative and/or enrollment data) (Education-to-Workforce Framework and StriveTogether 2021).

Educational staff composition by race and ethnicity compared to student composition by race and ethnicity (Education-to-Workforce Framework and StriveTogether 2021).

Percentage of program sites that support a language other than English (STEP Forward with Data Framework).

Percentage of program sites where children from focal populations are exposed to staff in their program who reflect their own identities (STEP Forward with Data Framework).

Percentage of workforce members who are fluent in the language spoken by the children they serve (STEP Forward with Data Framework).

Districts have plans to recruit educators from underrepresented populations (National Education Association).

Districts have plans to retain educators from underrepresented populations (West Ed).

Re-evaluate “last-in, first-out” practices which are more likely to remove early career teachers who identify as people of color (TNTP).

Engaging young men of color in early childhood education initiatives, like the Literacy Lab’s Leading Men Fellowship (Results for America).

State policy supports recruitment of promising future educators, including underrepresented populations (National Education Association).

Making educator diversity data visible and actionable to all stakeholders (Education Trust).

Setting clear goals at the state, district and teacher preparation levels to increase educator diversity (Education Trust).

Investing in efforts to retain teachers of color that improve working conditions and provide opportunities for personal and professional growth (Education Trust).

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Classroom observation of instructional practice

Teachers’ overall and subscale scores on an observation rubric associated with an educator observation system; examples of common frameworks include the Danielson’s Framework for Teaching and the Marzano Causal Teacher Evaluation Model (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Percentage of teachers rated effective based on multiple measures of performance (National Education Association).

Teacher observations, instructional quality reviews and teacher/student interaction measures (Birth to Grade 3 Indicator Framework).

Teacher coaching and professional development (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating alignment among professional learning, standards, curriculum and assessments (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with professional learning time and opportunities (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators who participated in job-embedded professional learning opportunities in the previous year (National Education Association).

Percentage of workforce members who receive training on reducing or eliminating bias in their work (STEP Forward with Data Framework).

Percentage of workforce members who receive training on trauma-informed care or responsiveness (STEP Forward with Data Framework).

Districts design, monitor and implement evaluation systems based on state framework in partnership with educators and their associations (National Education Association).

Districts align professional learning with standards, curriculum and assessments (National Education Association).

Districts use evaluations aligned with induction (National Education Association).

Districts use performance evaluations employing multiple measures (National Education Association).

Districts provide “peer assistance” or “peer assistance and review” (PAR) teams (National Education Association).

Districts integrate theories, research and models of human learning into the planning and design of professional learning (National Education Association).

Districts provide educators with targeted support based on formative and summative evaluation results (National Education Association).

Districts provide extra resources and assistance for those educators in hard-to-staff schools (National Education Association).

Assess the quality of learning environments, teacher-child interaction, teaching strategies, and children’s progress, and use the data for continuous improvement (Alliance for Early Success).

Districts provide teacher leadership development (National Education Association).

Districts support regular, job-embedded professional learning opportunities (National Education Association).

Districts use a variety of student, educator and systems data to plan, assess and evaluate professional learning (National Education Association).

Providing training and classroom materials (Results for America).

State develops a comprehensive culturally-responsive teaching policy, covering equity and racial and social justice, to increase educators’ cultural and linguistic competence through pre-service education, licensure and ongoing professional learning (National Education Association).

State provides funding for job-embedded professional learning opportunities to help educators improve their instructional repertoire (National Education Association).

State policy mandates multiprofessional collaboration on educator support and evaluation systems staffed by active pre-K through 12 educators (National Education Association).

State policy requires that evaluations be based on multiple measures of performance to determine effectiveness. Measures may include classroom observations, portfolios, leadership roles and professional learning (National Education Association).

State provides funding for “peer assistance” and “peer assistance and review” (PAR) teams (National Education Association).

Contributing factor

Teacher rewards, recognition and benefits

Implement strategies to improve salaries, benefits, and working conditions for early childhood educators, and support compensation parity across early learning programs (child care, Pre-K and K-3 classrooms) (Alliance for Early Success).

Districts have differentiated pay structures for clearly defined roles and responsibilities that account for hybrid/varied educator roles within a school (National Education Association).

Districts offer financial incentives for educators working in hard-to-staff schools (National Education Association).

Districts offer incentives for teachers to take on differentiated or hybrid roles (National Education Association).

Districts offer teachers starting salaries comparable to other professionals with similar skills, knowledge and education. Additionally, education support professionals (ESPs) are paid at least a minimum wage (National Education Association).

State and/or district contributions for health coverage increase at least enough to keep up with health care inflation (National Education Association).

State or district provides access to affordable, quality health insurance for education employees and their families (National Education Association).

State or district recognizes highly effective teachers through awards and additional pay, like the Texas Teacher Incentive Allotment (Teacher Incentive Allotment).

Contributing factor

Teacher voice in decision making

Districts dedicate funding to support educator engagement with educator leadership organizations and learning networks (National Education Association).

Districts dedicate resources to design professional learning that supports educator leadership and teacher agency (National Education Association).

Districts dedicate resources toward lifting and amplifying educator voice (e.g., dedicate funds to engagement) (National Education Association).

State has an autonomous standards board, the majority of whom are active pre-K through grade 12 educators and are ethnically and racially representative of the student body (National Education Association).

State requires that all planning and decision-making bodies related to the educator profession include active pre-K through grade 12 educators (National Education Association).

Question 14: Are students who are behind grade level identified early and provided high-quality interventions aligned to the curriculum?

Why it matters

Early identification and intervention for students who are behind grade level in reading are critical for long-term academic success. Research shows that students who do not develop strong foundational literacy skills by third grade are more likely to experience academic struggles, higher dropout rates and lower lifetime earnings (Hernandez, 2011). Early intervention, particularly high-dosage tutoring and structured literacy instruction focusing on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and writing, has been shown to accelerate reading growth and prevent long-term difficulties (Slavin et al., 2011; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007). Studies also confirm that early, intensive reading interventions are significantly more effective than later remediation, as they capitalize on the brain’s plasticity during critical developmental periods (Torgesen, 2004; Foorman et al., 2016). Frequent progress monitoring ensures that interventions remain responsive to student needs, maximizing their impact (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Without timely support, struggling readers are likely to fall further behind, reinforcing cycles of academic inequity (Stanovich, 1986). Investing in early, evidence-based interventions is essential for closing literacy gaps and promoting equitable educational opportunities.

Contributing factor | Key source: E-W Framework

Access to early intervention screening

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating feelings of confidence in analyzing and interpreting formative and summative assessment data (National Education Association).

Percentage of educators surveyed indicating satisfaction with the time allotted to analyze assessment results and inform instruction (National Education Association).

Percentage of teachers indicating satisfaction with the sources used to measure student growth (National Education Association).

Percentage of teachers surveyed indicating assessments adhere to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (National Education Association).

Percentage of teachers surveyed indicating satisfaction with the quality of student assessments (National Education Association).

Promote comprehensive screening and early detection of developmental delays and link to referral, care coordination, and intervention. (Alliance for Early Success)

Districts provide resources and funding for job-embedded professional learning for teachers to become proficient users of formative and summative assessment data (National Education Association).

Districts release assessment results in time to inform learning (National Education Association).

Districts train school personnel to interpret data system results to inform and improve instruction and identify needed supports (National Education Association).

Districts use both formative and summative student assessments that adhere to the principles of UDL (National Education Association).

School and system schedules allocate no less than 120 minutes a day for students to engage in Tier 1 literacy instruction that includes foundational skills, language comprehension, and differentiated small-group instruction (Instruction Partners).

Students with dyslexia and other reading disabilities can learn to read with additional support and intervention focused on developing both foundational decoding skills and language comprehension (Bellwether).

Teachers of struggling readers need to be able to teach the five components of reading. All students, and especially struggling readers, need explicit, systematic teaching of literacy (including phonemes and letter-sound relationships), practice, student-teacher interaction, carefully chosen examples, decodable text, and feedback that corrects their errors (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Aspiring teachers must be able to assess and identify which specific foundational reading skills a student is struggling with, what interventions to deploy to address this deficit (including knowing when to bring in a reading specialist or the help of a reading coach), and how to monitor progress based on research-based methods (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

Teachers need to be empowered to recognize the profile of children who are at-risk, or struggling readers. This includes the ability to not only recognize the signs of dyslexia, but also appreciate the intensity and explicitness of the instruction a student may need to become a skilled reader (NCTQ Teacher Prep Review).

The What Works Clearinghouse recommends assigning these students who are off track to a trained adult advocate who provides individualized support to meet their academic, social, and emotional needs. This individual can identify students’ unmet needs and either directly provide support or coordinate additional support. An advocate is a student’s “go-to person” for the resources and support they need (Education-to-Workforce Framework).

Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act requires the state’s Department of Education to establish a panel to identify and adopt appropriate screening tools. The state implemented regular universal screening for early identification of struggling students and development of individual reading plans (Bellwether).

Georgia’s Georgia Early Literacy Act (2023) has the state board of education establish standards to measure literacy and create a list of screening tools to identify struggling readers (Bellwether).

State accountability system holds schools accountable for multiple measures of school quality and student success (multiple measures may include chronic absenteeism, school climate and access to advanced and rigorous courses) (National Education Association).

State develops a policy that requires the use of both formative and summative student assessments that adhere to the principles of UDL (National Education Association).

State has a comprehensive, aligned and integrated information management system that enables districts and schools to analyze, evaluate and continuously improve student, educator and school performance (National Education Association).

School and district accountability systems advance continuous improvement and a comprehensive vision of student success (Urban Institute).

Legislation in approximately 40 states requires specific instructional methods and/or type and frequency of support for struggling readers. Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act requires districts to provide intensive reading instruction and support for struggling students (Bellwether).

Mississippi’s 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act added literacy coaches to the state’s lowest-performing schools (Bellwether).

Tennessee’s Tennessee Literacy Success Act (2021) requires the use of a reading screener to identify reading challenges prior to completing grade 3 (Bellwether).

Georgia’s Georgia Early Literacy Act (2023) requires the use of a reading screener for students in grades K-3 and the development of individual reading plans for struggling students (Bellwether).

Connecticut’s Right to Read act (2021) requires districts to create interventions for students who are not progressing in their reading development (Bellwether).

As of 2024, 39 states and the District of Columbia had adopted mandatory dyslexia screening to identify children for additional support and services as early as possible (Bellwether).

Identifying the needs of a range of student populations is just the start; states must also provide support for all students (Shanker Institute).

State policy around early reading should maintain a broad scope that encompasses all students – from preschoolers to those beyond the 3rd grade and across all school types, including charter and non-Title I schools (Shanker Institute).

State policy should keep a strong focus on progress monitoring through valid and reliable assessments (Shanker Institute).

States should maintain legislation that provides support and resources for students with dyslexia (Shanker Institute).

Legislators should support inclusive, explicit and systematic reading instruction that values students’ diverse backgrounds, languages, and knowledge (as seen in the reading instruction resource Reading Rockets) (Shanker Institute).

Legislators should strive to address students’ literacy needs comprehensively by developing a suite of interventions, instead of relying on isolated initiatives (as Michigan is able to do) (Shanker Institute),

Lawmakers should strive for equitable support for all students, including students experiencing poverty, English learners or students with dyslexia. Given the persistent and predictable disparities in reading proficiency across racial and ethnic lines, we urge legislators to craft language that deliberately targets the needs of black, brown, and indigenous students (Model state: California) (Shanker Institute).

Through several bills, Michigan has created a set of interventions designed to address the needs of students who may need additional support in reading. Five different support programs have been developed under this legislation: (1) tutoring, (2) summer programs, (3) before- and after-school programs, (4) multi-tiered systems of support and (5) parent involvement and support programs (Shanker Institute).

Michigan has partnered with the Michigan Education Corps to provide tutoring in pre-K through 3rd grade. The tutors will be trained in a multisensory, sequential, systematic education approach to reading. The impact of the tutoring program will be measured by recording the number of tutors, the number of children tutored and their demographic information, whether interventions are implemented with fidelity, whether children’s improvement in math or literacy is consistent with expectations, and the impact of the programs on organizations and stakeholders (Shanker Institute).

Michigan’s Grand Valley State University will work with families and districts to provide services such as after-school education and specialized summer education programming designed to improve reading and literacy using a multisensory approach (Shanker Institute).

Michigan is adopting a multi-tiered system of supports model to track pre-K to 3rd grade students’ progress, aiming for them to read at grade level by the end of 3rd grade. The multi-tiered system of supports must include (i) team-based leadership, (ii) a tiered delivery system; (iii) selection and implementation of instruction, interventions, and supports; (iv) a comprehensive screening and assessment system; and (v) continuous data-based decision making (Shanker Institute).

Michigan’s state-funded preschool program, The Great Start Readiness Program, will partner with local parent coalitions to coordinate home visits for at-risk children and their families. The home visits must be conducted as part of a locally coordinated, family-centered, data-driven strategic plan. One of the goals of the home visits is to improve school readiness using evidence-based methods, including a focus on developmentally appropriate outcomes for early literacy so that children have the reading proficiency they need to succeed in 4th grade and beyond (Shanker Institute).

State legislation should include language on reading plans, which are separate from Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and may call for a wide variety of supports such as supplemental instructional services, multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), notifications to parents, or recommendations to other specialists for further diagnosis and services. AL HB 388, for example, calls for teachers or other school personnel to develop an individual reading improvement plan “no later than 30 days after the identification of the reading deficiency.” Promotion to the 4th grade “with a good cause exemption” is contingent on the child continuing to receive intensive reading support (Shanker Institute).

Tennessee’s policy on High-Dosage, Low-Ratio Tutoring: Across the state, students who are struggling with reading proficiently are provided with tutoring in small groups (teacher-student ratios of 1:3 or 1:4), for at least 30-minute sessions, multiple times per week. This frequent low-ratio tutoring is a key state strategy and one pathway for promotion to fourth grade for students who did not score proficient on their third-grade ELA assessment (SCORE Tennessee Policy Pillars).

Early Grade Reading Playbook

Supported by the Gates Foundation, this resource shares research, indicators and strategies to strengthen early reading systems.

Download the playbook

Overview

New to the Early Grade Reading Playbook?

Science of Reading Overview and Importance

Why the Science of Reading matters

Question 7: Does each school have a well-trained, specialized early literacy team to facilitate a flexible, equitable literacy program?

Why it matters

Teacher training, learning and development

Contributing indicators

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

Question 8: Does the school maximize and direct time to continuously improve the effectiveness of instruction and intervention?

Why it matters

Effective use of instructional time, collaborative planning time and instructional support

Contributing indicators

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

Question 9: Are teachers and schools making significant contributions to academic growth for students?

Why it matters

Multilingual learner progress

Contributing indicators

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

School’s contributions to student outcomes

Systems indicators

Practices

Teacher’s contributions to student learning growth

Systems indicators

Policies

Student perceptions of teaching

Contributing indicators

Policies

Question 10: Do students have effective, representative teachers and leaders?

Why it matters

Effective program and school leadership

Systems indicators

Practices

Education retention and tenure

Systems indicators

Policies

Teacher leadership

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

Teacher recruiting and hiring

Systems indicators

Practices

Question 11: Do students have access to curricula aligned to the Science of Reading research and that includes explicit phonics instruction?

Why it matters

Access to quality, culturally responsive curriculum

Practices

Policies

Assessments

Practices

Policies

Question 12: Do students attend school in systems with adequate funding to support curricula, professional learning and ongoing coaching needed to implement the Science of Reading?

Why it matters

Expenditures per student

Contributing indicators

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

Question 13: Do students have access to teachers trained, coached and supported to teach the Science of Reading?

Why it matters

Teacher credentials and teacher preparation

Contributing indicators

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

Teacher experience

Contributing indicators

Practices

Representational racial and ethnic diversity of educators

Systems indicators

Practices

Policies

Classroom observation of instructional practice

Contributing indicators