Groves Literacy

Groves Academy: Where the art of teaching meets the science of learning

Leave a comment

Taking Exception with the International Dyslexia Association

Groves Academy is a member of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), the pre-eminent organization in the country, if not the world, in disseminating research regarding reading and reading disabilities.  IDA is also a convincing advocate for those who have reading disabilities.  It is a powerful lobby in the halls of Washington DC as well as in state capitols across the country.  We are thankful for the information the organization shares and the influence it has in the way we teach reading, especially to those for whom learning to read does not come easily.

We also agree with IDA that we should question the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education both due to her lack of experience in public education as well as her apparent lack of knowledge with respect to the rights of students in special education as outlined in federal legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) passed in 1975.  IDEA guarantees a “free and appropriate public education” to children with disabilities, and Ms. DeVos appears to not understand that IDEA is a federal law and not subject to state interpretation.  For these reasons alone, Ms. DeVos is not qualified to serve as our nation’s Secretary of Education.  Rick Smith, the executive director of IDA, is right to bring this to the attention of IDA members.

I must take exception with part of Mr. Smith’s rationale for determining that Ms. DeVos is unqualified to serve as Secretary of Education.  He writes, “I have grave concerns about the qualifications of Ms. DeVos due to her lack of experience in the public education system as well as her record of support for charter and private schools that are not obligated to follow federal education standards or guidelines.”

For a variety of reasons that may be found in my “Education Reform” blog, our public education system is broken, badly broken, and many of our nation’s students are not well served within this system.  Charter and private schools provide an alternative to a public education system that has little, if any, accountability.  The public education system needs competition to force needed changes.  Charter and private schools should be given more opportunity to pressure the monolith public education machine, not less.

While I agree that we should question DeVos’s nomination as Secretary of Education, we should be very clear about why.  Her support of charter and private schools is not a reason for not supporting her, and it is not blasphemous to disagree with IDA.


1 Comment

The Reading Wars: A Continued Contest

With the progressive social movements of the 1960s and 1970s came a progressive reading movement, whole language.  This new, constructivist theory of reading acquisition resonated loudly with teachers who felt they were constrained by teaching phonics (the teaching of symbol-sound correspondences and the rules and generalizations of the English Language).  Whole language advocates believe that learning to read and spell parallels how we learn oral language–through mere exposure.  Whole language theory holds that if children are read to enough, they will learn to generalize the relationship between letters and sounds.  They magically will learn to break the code.   In this approach to learning to read, students learn words like the Chinese learn ideograms, as an entire unit, not as individual sounds that are blended to create a word.

Unfortunately for whole language advocates, the science behind learning to read does not reflect how students actually learn to read.  As Stanislas Dehaene, one of the most highly regarded reading researchers in the world, states, good readers look at every letter of a word and sound out words.  What differs between a struggling or emerging reader and a proficient reader is the speed at which they read.  Proficient readers associate symbols and sounds almost instantaneously.  For struggling and emerging readers, pulling the print off the page is a laborious, tiring process.

If you are interested in how people learn to read, you might be interested in professor Dehaene’s Ted Talk.

Dehaene’s work,along with that of many other reading researchers, underscores the importance of teaching reading in a very systematic and explicit way.  While it is important to expose students to good literature, students have to have the ability to translate the code to words they speak.  If they can’t do this, they will never appreciate curling up in bed with a good book to open new worlds.

John Alexander, Head of School






Who is to Blame?

As I have mentioned on this literacy blog, we have a reading crisis in this country.  Approximately 30% of our nation’s fourth graders do not read at a basic level (they can’t decode the printed word); over 60% of our nation’s fourth graders can’t read proficiently (with good comprehension).  These dismal scores provide fodder for politicians, the media, and the general public to vociferously criticize teachers.  “For heaven’s sake, why can’t Billy read?”

Do teachers really deserve this blame?  I don’t think so.  The primary blame lies at the feet of two constituencies, higher education–colleges and universities, which prepare teachers and are supposed to be the beacon of scientific inquiry–and state departments of education, which are responsible for teacher licensing and knowledge standards.  As evident by the course requirements for most undergraduate programs, the teaching of reading is not highly valued in the world of education.  I think most of us would contend that learning to read is the most important skill that a child can acquire in school.  Without the ability to read proficiently at a minimum of sixth grade, a child is wandering down a path that will most likely lead to a dark future.

School district administrators–principals, directors of curriculum and instruction, and special education directors–as well as reading specialists and literacy coaches shoulder some of the responsibility for poor reading scores.  Not only should they be providing appropriate professional development for their teachers (especially the kindergarten through third grade teachers), they should also be pressuring higher education and state departments of education for stronger knowledge standards in reading that teachers must demonstrate mastery with in order to receive a teaching license.

Finally, teacher unions share the blame.  Speaking from experience, teacher unions are resistant to change that affects their primary stakeholders, teachers.  Isn’t it ironic that teachers are the primary stakeholders of teacher unions, not students?

There are plenty of constituencies who share the blame for our nation’s literacy crisis.  The question now becomes:  Will anyone step forward and do what is needed to affect meaningful change?  We know how children need to be taught for them to learn to read.  We can do it.  Will we?

John Alexander, Head of School


Leave a comment

Are One In Five American Students Dyslexic?

A recent contribution on a literacy thread, Spelltalk, reported that one in five American students are dyslexic; they are students with reading, spelling, and written expression difficulties due to the way their brains are wired. This created a great deal of controversy with many people claiming that the number was way too high. I wonder whether it matters.

I think the best way to think of the teaching of reading is that all kids  learn to read with differing amounts of personal effort and with differing amounts of explicit instruction required. Kids on one end of the reading continuum have neurological wiring issues between areas of the brain that, for whatever reason, do not work efficiently. This wiring impacts specific areas of the brain’s ability to communicate with one another, and this impacts their ability to read fluently; kids with wiring issues themselves fall on a continuum. You can have real significant wiring issues or you can have minimally impacted wiring issues. The wiring issues help determine (but don’t solely determine) how quickly kids learn to read fluently and proficiently. I believe that Shaywitz in Overcoming Dyslexia states that these kids make up almost one in five of kids who are not reading at the basic or proficient reading levels. For 20% of our students, there is a brain-based reason for their struggles with reading.

An issue of equal, if not greater importance, are the kids who have more traditionally wired brains but who still don’t learn to read fluently or proficiently. Given the NAEP scores across the country, this problem is an epidemic. About 30% of our nation’s fourth graders don’t read at a basic reading level. (They have difficulty decoding the printed word.)  About 60% of our nation’s fourth graders don’t read proficiently (with good comprehension). These kids aren’t dyslexic. They are ELL kids; they are kids from poverty with a single parent or being raised by relatives; they are white middle class kids; they are everywhere. These kids are instructional casualties.
Many years ago, Louisa Moats, one of the nation’s reading experts, said that teaching reading is rocket science. We know more now. We know that good reading instruction is good reading instruction. Kids need to be proficient with phonological processing; at a young age, they need to be able to segment, sequence, and manipulate sounds within words; they have to have an understanding of the alphabetic principle to the point of automaticity; they need to understand syllable patterns and morphological structures of words; they need to be able to read fluently; they need to have an adequate oral vocabulary; and they need to be taught comprehension strategies to help them understand what they read. In short, as Moats says, they need to understand the  relationship of speech to print, and in the early years, their spelling instruction needs to complement their decoding instruction. All of these skills sets need to be introduced and mastered in an appropriate developmental scope and sequence of skills.  We know that explicit instruction is better than implicit instruction. Simply stated, we can’t expect teachers to impart the relationship between speech and print to their emerging and struggling readers if teachers don’t understand the relationship between speech and print. The vast majority do not.
We can’t control where the kids are coming from, but we can control critical variables of instruction including: the content and instructional knowledge of the teacher; the curriculum used; the intensity of the instruction (reading group size); the frequency of instruction (how many minutes a day do the kids receive explicit instruction?); the duration of the instruction or the intervention; and the appropriate grouping of students for reading instruction based on their reading skills.
Children in reading programs that identify these variables of instruction and are both intentional and thoughtful about the delivery of the instruction can, and do, make significant gains in their reading–both in fluency and in comprehension. I believe we can attain reading proficiency with 90%+ of the student population when such a program is implemented, provided it is implemented with knowledgeable teachers who teach with fidelity and who can be diagnostic-prescriptive in their approach.
Don’t believe teachers who say that kids all learn to read differently. They don’t. Reading science shows us this.
Finally, if 60% of fourth graders can’t read proficiently, does it really matter if one in five American students are diagnosed as being dyslexic? All students–dyslexic or not–deserve good reading instruction.
John Alexander, Head of School

Leave a comment

Another Minneapolis School District Controversy

Admit it.  Many of us who reside in Minneapolis feel that the Minneapolis Public School District (MPSD) has been in disarray for years.  With over 35,000 students in 76 schools, MPSD is the third largest in the state.  It is a decentralized juggernaut that appears to lack consistency from school to school.   As one Minneapolis teacher once told me, “They (administrators) can tell us what to do, but once the classroom door is closed, we are free to do as we wish.”  That attitude is reinforced by a powerful teachers’ union whose primary consideration appears to be its teacher members, not its students.  Unions like this hold great power and can ensure mediocrity instead of excellence.

In the four short months of the current school year, there have been at least two significant controversies involving the district.  I wrote about the first, “Lazy Lucy,” in this blog a few months ago.

The optics of the second controversy, the school board’s selection of a  new district superintendent, is no better.  On December 7 with the school board’s 6 to 3 vote, Dr. Sergio Paez was chosen over two other candidates, including Michael Goar, the interim superintendent who garnered the other three votes.

Paez was the superintendent of the Holyoke School District in Holyoke, Massachusetts.   The Holyoke School District is approximately a seventh the size of Minneapolis and reportedly has a three million dollar deficit and a similarly poor graduation rate (60%).  In addition, the state has taken over the district and Paez no longer serves as the superintendent but is employed as a consultant.

In some people’s minds, these were reasons enough not to offer Paez a contract, but there is more.  There was an allegation of student abuse by teacher(s) in one of the Holyoke schools.  Reportedly, Paez looked into the allegation and didn’t find any evidence to dismiss anyone or change the people that were contracting the services for that particular program.  The allegation is now being investigated by the Hampden County District Attorney.  In conducting an internet search, I quickly found the complaint which was dated April 15, 2015.  It’s difficult to fathom why the school board or the search committee couldn’t do the same.

Although contract negotiations with Paez have stopped pending further investigation into the allegations, the district’s decision-making process  is again called into question.  For critical decisions–like choosing a superintendent or books for young readers (Lazy Lucy), it would be a benefit to all to make the correct decision the first time.

If this hiring decision by the MPSD school board concerns you as it does me, you may contact the district at or call 612.668.0000.

John Alexander, Head of School


1 Comment

Preschool Funding: Should We or Shouldn’t We?

The Minnesota state coffers will soon be filled with almost two billion dollars of excess revenue, and, undoubtedly, there will be conversations between Democrats and Republicans about how to spend, or not spend, this surplus.  Governor Dayton is certain to push for funding preschool for all Minnesota youngsters as this has been an education priority for his administration.

Many feel that an investment in preschool for all Minnesota four year olds is prudent because there may be a high return on investment (ROI).  In fact, the Institute for a Competitive Workforce, an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce, calculated that “for every dollar invested today, savings range from $2.50 to as much as $17.00 in the years ahead.”  Similarly, James Heckman, a University of Chicago economist and Nobel Laureate, states that there is a seven to ten percent annual return on investment in high-quality preschool.

Given the reading programs found in our state’s kindergarten through third grade programs, I question whether investing tens of millions of dollars in a Minnesota preschool program is a good idea.  If our schools are not going to use evidence-based approaches to teach reading and instead promote a sight word reading approach, one that depends on rote memorization of words, the preparation of four year olds will all be for naught.  We will be throwing money down the proverbial drain.

Let’s first fix our emerging and struggling reading programs.  Then a preschool program’s seeds could really take root and flourish.  Without a strong, evidence-based literacy program in the early elementary years, the students’ literacy development will wither like a flower without its nutrients.

Our state’s students deserve better.

John Alexander, Head of School