Why Aren’t We Moving the Needle on NAEP Outcomes?

With the recent release of yet another round of worse than stagnant results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress outcomes one cannot help but wonder, is moving the national needle in reading truly doable? In short, the answer to that question is a resounding, yes.

With decades of experience driving school change, we’ve witnessed firsthand one school after another make tremendous improvement in literacy scores across countless schools and districts, demonstrating what’s possible when effective systems, structures and evidence-based research practices regarding literacy instruction are in place. However, there’s a catch, that phrase, “one school after another.” It is much more difficult and takes much longer to move a nation of schools than it does one district’s group of schools.

But lessons for the nation can be learned from these singular schools and districts that have made tremendous strides in the literacy outcomes for their students. State and local policies would be advised to mirror these practices.

The Imperfections within State Legislation

Forty-five states have passed laws specifically aimed at increasing literacy outcomes for students. Out of these forty-five states, thirty-seven have enacted legislation mandating that literacy instruction be based on evidence-based practices, such as structured literacy, which aligns with research on how children learn to read. These state policies are put into place with the right intent in mind, state leaders understand and want better educational outcomes for their state’s students.

When state policies do indeed require schools to use evidence-based practices, many rely on the schools or district themselves to know what those practices are and how to carry-out such practices, failing to provide school leaders with the critical “how-to” for implementing these practices effectively. Imposing such a tremendous responsibility on our local schools, without arming them with sufficient knowledge and background to determine how to fulfill these policies and practices seems gross oversight. Consequently, too often districts turn to their fellow districts down-the-mile to see what they are doing or what seems popular in the area, often only further perpetuating unsuccessful practices. This overreliance on informal networks and popular trends typically serves to preserve systemic underperformance.

Why Teachers are Still Playing Catch-up

To move the needle on literacy outcomes, all teachers deserve and should be assured that their instructional practices on literacy instruction reflect the most current research on exactly that, how children learn to read. Unfortunately, our universities are also behind in providing this information to future teachers, let alone those who have been in the classrooms for decades.

In 2023, the National Council on Teacher Quality, an organization that analyzes how universities prepare teacher candidates in early reading, found that only 28 percent of teacher preparation programs fully address all five components of reading. Of the components taught, however, the NCTQ found that comprehension was the component most covered by traditional teacher preparation programs, and phonemic awareness, which is essential to the development of word recognition, was covered the least (NCTQ, 2023a).

Dozens of states do require professional development to be provided to educators in a structured literacy approach. Often it is incumbent upon the districts or schools to seek out such professional development. Again, assuming that they are self-reliant in untangling the many offerings available and finding the most reliable and effective professional development for their own educators. Further, the hours of professional development required vary tremendously. Many professional development courses can take up to 100 hours of time, yet we have found that teachers can gain actionable knowledge with as little as 40 hours of professional development.

In the schools and districts that we see making significant inroads on increased literacy outcomes, all teachers have been provided with professional development opportunities on how children learn to read. Furthermore, these schools prioritize continuous professional development in literacy as a fundamental component of their policies for new teachers and hires. This ensures that there is no decline in teacher expertise regarding literacy.

Instructional Coaching: How Teacher Support Drives Literacy Success

Most universities have omitted the “methods” portion of literacy instruction courses. Many teachers in classrooms today were taught how to implement methods found within a balanced literacy approach. Consequently, teachers lack a solid pedagogy for structured literacy practices. To help teachers make a shift from balanced literacy to structured literacy, some state’s legislative policies have taken this lack of understanding and have resolved it by providing instructional coaching to their lowest performing schools. Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama, states that have not lost ground but instead have demonstrated growth in literacy outcomes, utilize this model to enhance both teacher knowledge and practices, thereby improving student literacy results.

When schools implement a shift in practices, such as moving from a balanced literacy approach to a structured literacy approach, teachers need coaching, yet instructional coaching is not available to all teachers and/or all schools. In many districts, instructional coaching is a luxury and is simply not affordable. When this is the case, principals must step in and fill the void. The unfortunate news is that only five states’ literacy legislation ensures school leaders (e.g. principals), are trained in structured literacy practices. We have found that now, in many states, teachers have more training than the people providing their evaluation. This oversight has led to a reluctance on the part of the principal to observe and provide feedback to teachers. In fact, by a lack of training to principals, many principals lack the confidence to engage in instructional conversations with teachers and instead, “fear a phoneme.”

Those schools that we see move the dial in literacy outcomes do provide teachers with coaching on how to implement structured literacy practices. If a coach is not available, the principal, as the instructional leader, can provide teachers with the coaching and feedback needed to enhance teaching practices and literacy outcomes.

Why Principals are Key to Increased Literacy Outcomes

Strong leadership is crucial, and schools with significant improvements in literacy have generally been shown to have exceptional principals. These principals establish the systems and structures that contribute to teachers’ and students’ success. They inspire teachers to increase their literacy expertise and practices by having on-going instructional conversations with teachers. Their teacher evaluations include meaningful feedback and action steps. Further, they display a sense of urgency to improve literacy outcomes across all student groups.

Research bears this out, the reading gains from replacing a below-average principal with one that is above-average, would be larger than approximately 50% of the effects on reading achievement of various educational interventions. This, based on nearly 750 studies. We are not suggesting replacing any principals, but we are suggesting that literacy outcomes in our nation would increase greatly if literacy policies were not aimed just at teachers.

Professional development for our school leaders is currently inadequate. Furthermore, principals, like teachers, need coaching in how to implement Science of Reading practices. Shifting from balanced literacy practices to a structured literacy approach is not just about instructional strategies. It is also about assessment practices, materials selection and systems for intervention and data analysis. Those practices, at least the selection and implementation of them, are not incumbent on our teachers but rather the work of a school leader. Currently, there are limited avenues for a leader to receive such training.

Systemic Shifts are Essential: Without Them, Literacy Progress Will Remain Stagnant

Literacy involves more than reading. Writing instruction is also an integral piece of literacy instruction and it is void in nearly every state policy. And, it should involve more than just focusing efforts on kindergarten through third grade students—the very grades and content most state policies focus on. The percentage of 8th grade students reading proficiently in this country is an abysmal 30%, and so effort should also be directed towards our adolescents.

Schools and districts in which literacy outcomes have increased dramatically are not dependent upon “one thing,” rather they are dependent on systemic shifts in school practices. Many of those shifts have been discussed but a focus on the very systems aligned to structured literacy must also change. Currently too many schools and districts are having to piecemeal together, professional development, teaching materials, coaching and leadership training. This fragmented strategy is a key factor in the stagnation seen in NAEP reading scores. Without comprehensive, aligned systems focused on structured literacy, progress will remain limited, and the cycle of underperformance will continue.

Starting the Path to Literacy Success

At Keys to Literacy, we believe in a comprehensive approach to addressing literacy challenges. Our solutions bridge the gaps in professional development for both teachers and principals, ensuring that all educators are equipped with the tools and knowledge necessary to implement evidence-based, structured literacy practices.

We do so by providing side-by-side coaching for principals and educators, equipping them to drive systemic changes in assessment, data-analysis, instructional feedback, and intervention systems. By aligning these essential components of professional development, coaching and leadership training—we offer schools and districts the roadmap to achieving sustained literacy improvement.