Early literacy grants work, but three years is not enough

Do you count on EdSource? If so, please make your donation today.

I once believed that improving reading at a failing school could be a finite job. I thought it meant bringing in a new curriculum, showing teachers how to use it and then lingering long enough to ensure that students receive consecutive years of high-quality instruction.

I was terribly wrong, but my misbelief brought me to work on California’s Early Literacy Support Block (ELSB) grant, and for that I’m grateful.

The early literacy grant resulted from a class-action lawsuit. Students sued California for lacking a plan to address low reading achievement. The result was a $53 million settlement to provide the state’s lowest-performing schools with supplemental funding and guidance. A recent evaluation by researchers at Stanford University found the focus on early literacy turned out to be worth more than the grant’s dollar amount — the program was 13 times more effective than general increases in school spending.

During an EdSource Roundtable on literacy, Mark Rosenbaum, lead attorney in the lawsuit noted, “If this is a pilot program, it has succeeded. We don’t need a task force; we don’t need more studies; we just need a commitment to expand it to every kid, every teacher and every school.”

Improving reading instruction requires a literacy plan backed by strong leadership. It means coordinating resources, monitoring progress, and changing course when needed. It demands making decisions based on evidence, not adult preferences, and prioritizing early literacy so that every child gets off to a good start reading.

 I was on a team that helped eligible schools draft literacy action plans for the grant funding. I’d hoped this work would inform statewide planning, but despite the program’s success, California is no closer to a literacy plan.

And worse, in a few months, schools like mine will lose the funding and support that made us briefly successful.

When the program launched, I joined Nystrom Elementary, in West Contra Costa Unified, as a literacy coach. At the time, 91% of our second-graders needed to learn kindergarten phonics, as did 65% of upper graders. Working fast, we created a “walk-to-read” block in which grade level bands (e.g., first and second grades) pooled their students and sorted them into groups according to assessment data. Each teacher taught two of the groups. Our plan required collaboration and created peer accountability for teaching a new curriculum.

In the second year, teachers led. They facilitated professional development, refined instruction and analyzed student data. We began to pick up momentum. By the middle of the year, the need for second grade intensive intervention was cut almost in half (from 86% to 46%). By the year’s end, according to the district’s reading comprehension assessment, Nystrom Elementary had the highest growth.

This year, we turned our attention to improving writing and language instruction. We’ve forged a partnership with SAiL Literacy Lab to bridge the divide between what researchers know about language development and how we teach our students.

Each year, we’ve adjusted our literacy action plan, incorporating what we’ve learned from research, practice and our student data. We’ve spent our literacy block grant funds on curriculum, coaching and intervention to strengthen classroom instruction, but our staff’s commitment to the plan is what improved achievement. 

Good literacy plans in California are rare, and wasted opportunities abound. Walk into any school and you are likely to see curriculum (some of it brand new) collecting dust. Our literacy coaches often say they are kept busy with subbing, yard duty and other tasks that don’t improve classroom teaching. Reading interventionists often feel isolated in their work, unsure how much they are contributing to their school’s overall success. Most rare in California are strong literacy plans that are backed by secure funding.

The money from the Early Literacy Support Block Grant is drying up, but my school’s work is not done. It never will be.

More than 95% of our students are from low-income households and our non-stability rate (students who enroll and disenroll, often due to unstable housing) is over 26%. Our school will always have intervention needs, teachers requiring support and data demanding analysis and action. These needs are not problems, as long as they are met with a plan and funding.

As Rosenbaum noted in the EdSource Roundtable: “This grant is only for three years. … That was the best we could get in the settlement, but that makes no sense if you care about kids. I wouldn’t say about my kids, ‘I will do what you need for three years, and then we’ll do the best we can afterwards.’ These schools, these educators, need what they need forever.”

This year, California spent over $225 million on coaching and intervention, but a literacy plan was not a condition for schools receiving the funds. Another $248 million was recently added to bring in a new cohort of schools, but those with expiring literacy plans were not prioritized.

Because California lacks a strategic plan to improve literacy (the very reason for the lawsuit years ago), effective literacy plans may soon become dreams deferred. The irony of this cuts deep.

•••

Margaret Goldberg is a literacy coach in West Contra Costa Unified School District and co-founder of The Right to Read Project, a group of teachers, researchers and activists committed to the pursuit of equity through literacy.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.