Reading Is Not an Entitlement

Politically speaking, I am a fan of the Science of Reading. All things aside, what I like most about it is basing instruction on research and responding to results accordingly.  But I am not a fan of, what I have seen with implementations of the science of reading is the loss of reading in classrooms, or ignoring the value of independent reading.  As I once heard, “Why do we have kids read when it’s not in the standards?  That’s a good point. When we come down to it, independent reading is not in the standards, which means it shouldn’t be prioritized.

One element of my classroom that can be particularly stressful for students is the expectation to read – not just randomized independent reading, but intentional independent reading (They prefer the former because there tends to be a lack of accountability.)  But over the years, independent reading, though not in the standards, is not only a staple of my classroom but has been the vehicle that promotes the transfer and practice of skills and reading processes learned in isolation.  What makes my independent reading structures disagreeable to some (as is discussed in I Hate Reading) is that independent reading is not always a pleasure reading.  Let’s face it, many 4-6 graders are not mature enough to embrace independent reading as a meaningful, life-changing, learning experience. They know it, as some of my students say, as a means to pass time or for entertainment. The legacy, of “I read Harry Potter because I like it.” Void of all this are the complexities of reading, which is what, in my opinion, independent reading should be all about – an experience.  Suffice it to say, independent reading has a role in the science of reading classrooms for this simple reading – it’s an opportunity to practice transferring the skills learned in isolation in reading. 

But this isn’t happening. Though some of us have been saying it, some of us have been living it, and many of us are seeing the cost.  Unfortunately, it takes journalism to address what we all know (The Schools that are No Longer Teaching Reading, Atlantic, 6/19/24).

Here’s my real-time problem with the application of independent reading in Science of Reading schools.  Reading is becoming an entitlement.

For the various reasons not included here, foundational reading skills – phonics – have essentially become a new subject in classrooms.  There’s a literacy block that might become foundational skills-based instruction, there may be a literacy block with a later time set aside for phonics.  Then there are the hybrid independent reading times that are used for phonics, and online programs like Lexia.

The assumption with a hybrid block is that students will have time to read independently, albeit inconsistently (which is a no-go when trying to teach and model various reading processes). Under the premise that, depending on the level, students have 60-80 minutes a week (time on task, that is. Time off task is not counted in that time, thus extending the actual time needed to reach the time goal) student will have time to independently read throughout the week.

How does this look?

Say 30 minutes a week is set aside for this hybrid block.  At max, that means 150 minutes a week. On paper, students who are at high levels on Lexia are only expected to complete 40 minutes a week, leaving them nearly four days of independent reading a week.

Average students are expected to attain 60 minutes a week, leaving ninety minutes to read during the week – best case scenario. Those who are struggling the most need 80 minutes a week, leaving, at best, two of the five days for independent reading, a full two days behind those of their higher-level peers.  More, for “striving” students or those who don’t want to read, they can put in 100 or minutes in the name of catching up to their peers.

And the justification for this is that there are reading experiences including comprehension and close reading, that are embedded thus providing students with the practices and activities that they need (never mind the discussion of teacher expertise or compensation for the lack of teacher expertise in reading instruction).  But there is NO sustained, engaged, authentic reading that is being sacrificed, but is the actual reading experiences that students will encounter throughout life.

Then there are the students who are imprisoned to phonics programs because they are so far behind, even with working behind the time expectations, cannot close the achievement gap (mainly because their higher-ability peers are accelerating in their reading because, well, they are already “good” at it) and are then marginalized, if not denied the opportunity for independent or guided authentic reading experiences. 

This is nothing short of shameful. Is the very shame students internalize that makes them realize they are inadequate compared to peers, that their designated deficiency makes them hate reading.

Thus, reading becomes an entitlement. Students who come to school prepared with oral language experiences, reading at home, and time to read during school are already ahead of their peers and scoring at the highest levels, thus minimizing the time required on a phonics platform and being given more time to reading independently, which is not reading to explore complexities of text, but to pass the time, inherently “loving” reading. This is compliant, passive reading which only adds to the argument that there is little evidence independent reading is beneficial in classrooms.  Nonetheless, students have more experience with text, which, I believe is beneficial in some ways.

For those furthest behind, those with the least amount of experience with engagement with text are denied guided and modeled experiences that can help them close the achievement gap. Yes, with certain programs, small-group instruction is sacrificed as well. The “have not” are again denied equity, that is equal opportunity to read, leaving them further behind, which is exactly what we should be trying to deter. You might have guessed it, the students, in my experience who are most in this category are high-poverty, struggling students.  Thus we perpetuate the cycle in the name of the Science of Reading, as the cure-all.

No. It’s the application of Science of Reading elements that requires intentional implementation and is free of inherent social biases. 

We know better and we need to do better. If we don’t, even with the Science of Reading, we ultimately change nothing,