What Can You Do with a Miscue: High School Prosody and Literary Analysis Intersect

 

Note: The video is PRIVATE - If you would like to study the video, I'll arrange a private viewing. 

Transcription (I used otter.ai. You should be able to hear the recording.)

Text Source

My markings (if I get time to scan it.) 

Context: 

The teacher selected a learner to provide data for an assessment class she was taking for her Master’s Degree. 

This 11th grade learner works from home. They are NOT a struggling reader or student.

Source/Text

This is the source of the document: https://www.henryanker.com/FluencyMasters.html 

Explanation: 

I've seen a lot of people do a lot of things with Running Records. Even though the SoT says that RR's are not sound SoR practices (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2020). Call it a miscue analysis then.

And a lot of secondary folks don't realize anything about how to conduct, code, or analyze an oral reading. 

I have goals: 

1. Show what a running record could look like in upper grades.

2. Show that MSV isn't nonsense about guessing. 

3. To show that our work with miscues goes beyond guessing and decoding for fonics - it's about meaning.

4. Show the advanced analysis the reading can reveal about reading behaviors and underlying reader beliefs and processes about reading. 

5. Show how we can use technology and AI to make the process easier.

The Data: 

I know. It's a lot. There is much to know and learn. And I'm relentless and detailed. Not sorry.

Results: 

So - the data: 

Matteo read at 157 words per minute at 98% accuracy.

Note: The calculation for accuracy didn’t really count all the lexical density and subordination issues as errors. 

Pretty impressive to survive the “icy climes” of 19th century prose with such ease.

There’s no evidence of reading ability issues for much of anything most of us would consider problems. 

The Intervention: 

But how in the world do we help a reader that is THIS good at such a complex text? 

Step One: Establish a purpose for reading. Matteo is reading this in that “I’m-reading-this-aloud-to-read-it” cadence.

They are doing what the teacher asked them to do. I really do think Matteo understands the text from other conversations and interactions with their teacher. Matteo would have benefitted from knowing WHY the teacher wanted them to read aloud.

“Matteo - I’m taking a class where we assess learners to see what we need to do to help them advance

their reading skills. Will you read this as well as you can? Focus on reading to understand what you are

reading. I’ll be asking you some questions about what you read to also test your understanding."

Step Two: Matteo has a pattern of omitting punctuation.Part of this is because this stuff was written in the 1800’s. We don’t talk like that anymore. Part of this is because Matteo is reading to finish. But part of it is because they aren’t used to thinking about how the punctuation is the FIRST place we hear how the author divides up complex ideas beyond subjects, verbs, and compound sentences. Matteo needs support to understand how the punctuation replicates speaking and the musical arc of phrases

inside sentences. 

Step Three: Matteo's fluency doesn't connect/transact with the author or the characters.

Matteo’s purpose doesn’t include decision making about WHO is speaking, WHAT they reveal about

the narrative, or WHY the author shares the ideas in this way.

And this is where prosody, fluency, and literary analysis intersect to bring us deeper comprehension and

transactions with the text and the author (Rosenblatt, 1978).

Here’s a few decisions that need to be made before reading that help determine how we read aloud.

These decisions completely change how the text would sound: 

• Do we read this aloud as if we were the author, Mary Shelley?
• To whom would she be reading? To her publisher? Editor? To me?
• Do we read this aloud as if we were Mrs. Saville’s brother?
• Is he reading it while writing it? Or sharing with one of his shipmates before sending it on? 
• Do we read this aloud as if we were Mrs. Saville reading her brother’s letter?
• How is she feeling and reacting to all of this news? 

Imagine how these three interventions would change Matteo's experience with the text. Imagine what Matteo could do with this kind of cuing support in the Science of Teaching Reading.

References: 

Anker, H. (n.d.). Fluency 68: Frankenstein. Mr. Anker Tests. https://www.henryanker.com/FluencyMasters.html

Google. (2026). Gemini (Feb 19 version) [Large language model]. https://gemini.google.com/

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.  

Texas Education Agency. (2020). Texas reading academies: Module 2, the science of teaching reading. https://tea.texas.gov/academics/early-childhood-education/reading/texas-reading-academies-hb-3   

Online Tests for Reading Level and Instructional Needs

Online Tests for Reading Level and Instructional Needs

An unpopular opinion...about online thingies that tell teachers what their kids' reading levels are and what they need for instruction.

An unpopular opinion...about what STAAR reports tell you about where kids are in their reading level and what they need for instruction.

From my experience and conversations: 

Online reading level screeners - I've NEVER seen one give a valid level. I've seen them spit out a bunch of stuff a kid should know how to do and what they don't. But it's ALWAYS wrong. 

STAAR - even TEA says the assessment results don't tell you a level or what a kid knows. Basically, STAAR tells you how well a kid learned the whole curriculum. And the SST will do the same. Just on more than one day. 

A Real-World Scenario

Let's examine a real world scenario. Anna is in 4th grade. Her school uses IXL. Maybe it uses MAP. Maybe it uses something even more inferior like Star Renaissance. Doesn't matter. 

Kids go to a computer lab. Oh - they don't have those anymore unless there's no library. 

I'll paint another picture. Kids take out their devices. They are in their Reading Language Arts Classroom. Sometimes, all the kids from the whole school are in the cafetori-gymnasi-torium at the same time. All the kids in the class are there. The teacher tells them where to go for the test. Some of the computers work. Others need to be charged. Some of the keys don't work. None of them have mice. Some of the browsers connect. Others don't. 

Then the kids sit there and read everything on the screen and do the best they can while the computer dutifully adapts to what they are clicking on. Kids carefully consider the answer choices and check back into the text to make sure they are right. Other kids finish and get to leave, but they keep on working. Some schools let the kids leave the room. Others make all people stay in place until all are finished with the exam. The kids who are finished read their own books quietly. The kids still testing all sit there and read everything on the screens the best they can. They are not distracted by what others are doing around them. They know they need to do the best they can and everyone is different. 

Nope. None of that happens. That is not the world any of us live in. Never have. 

Human Subjects and Cognitive Actions

So reading. It's all in the head. It's quiet. No one knows what's actually going on - nothing is observable from a process standpoint. And there's nothing really from a product standpoint other than selecting the right answer. But we never really know why that data means what it does until we sit with a kid and talk with them. We never really know WHY that data says what it does because we weren't there  - not in the room where it happened. There are simply too many other variables in setting, individuality, background, emotional maturity, other abilities, what happened in the hall or home before it happened. 

If you are really going to have valid data that tells you WHY a kid can't do a particular standard - you have to understand the reading process in general, the ways kids get it confused, and cause the act of reading to be observable. You have to talk to a kid. You have to hear what they read. You have to analyze the actions and reactions. 

A Chart to Think and Compare

As I was trying to explain the differences in IXL and what we really need to make instructional decisions about kids, I started making this chart with my learner. We brainstormed these ideas.

IXL	IRI
Computer Based	Paper Based
How do they determine the placement level?	Set of words to read and code; then match to a leveled passage
Cannot capture fluency or accuracy; Collects data about speed and time spent	Fluency and accuracy measured and analyzed
Comprehension questions and TEKS based stuff	Underlying causes
Quick	Time Consuming
Masses	Individuals
Adaptive leveling for future computerized lessons	Diagnostic for theories of reading and approaches to difficulty
Unmonitored	Monitored by an adult; relational
Negatives: Flawed data; Kid thinks they are dumb; learned helplessness; assigned to lessons they don't need	Negatives in practice: Stay in the same level; static group based on the level instead of their actual behaviors and needs; teachers don't know how to use them properly

An Experiment

I'm working with a learner right now who has a lot of STAAR and Reading Level data from a computer. The kid she's working with is in 7th grade. The data tells her that she needs to read at a 4.5 reading level. But I watched her read that IRI (Informal Reading Inventory from a well known source). She's not reading at the 4.5 level. I'll let you know what we discover. 

Banned Words, Head Start, Executive Orders, Court Injunctions

Request: I received a message from a friend about specific words that are banned in relationships to Head Start settings. Here was the instagram post: 

aclu_nationwide

 

The Trump administration is putting extreme restrictions to Head Start programs, including preventing the use of words like "woman," “disability,” and “race” when applying for grants. We're taking President Trump to court to protect this critical program.

 Was it true? Were these words actually banned? Kinda. Here's the scoop: 

What do the Executive Orders Actually Say? 

There ARE executive orders published in January of 2025 that addressed terminology about gender and diversity. 

Executive Order 14151: I think this is the link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/ 

Executive Order 14168: 

There is another law the language appears with called EO 14173. 

The EO thing does this: Basically - this is the language that the government says that we are supposed to be using the term "sex" and not "gender." The "WE" referenced means people who work for the government. Or get money from them. All federal policies and documents must use the term "sex" in terms of "male" and "female" because they are "immutable biological classifications." 

BOTH EO and 14173 says that no programs can exist that use that kind of language. All language on websites and grants may not use these kinds of words; 

• "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" 
• "(DEI)"
• "Gender and Identity" 
• "Sex is not a synonym for and does not include the term 'gender identity." 
• "Equity" and "Equity-related" 
• "Environmental Justice" 
• "Marginalized communities" 
• "Socially disadvantaged" 

Here's where it actually comes from and lives in the documents: 

Section 2(i): Agencies shall terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and "environmental justice" offices... all "equity action plans," initiatives, or programs.

Section 3(a): Agencies must eradicate the use of "gender identity" and implement regulations, guidance, forms, and communications to comply... [recognizing] the two biological sexes are not interchangeable.

What about the "six page" list of banned terms?

Well. There's a lawsuit: Washington State Association of Head Start et al. v. Kennedy. The Washington State folks were applying for a grant. Allegedly, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent the Washington folks  - and perhaps some other grant applicants - a pdf that asked them to delete particular words to make sure their funding renewal requests could even be processes. 

The court filings from December 5th post this document as their exhibit one.  https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/12/Doc-135-1-Dec.-of-Mary-Roe.pdf See item 12 for the specific details and terms they were asked to remove. 

The ACLU added a supplementary record to describe how the list has been used to reject the applications and funding: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/12/Doc-136-Mot.-to-Supp-Record.pdf. See page 2 of 10 at the end for specific words. Page 3 continues the list and describes the impact for the next two pages. 

Current Status: 

It's blocked for now. Can't be enforced. 

In the January 7th preliminary injunction, the federal judge told the administration they had to stop asking folks to take these words out of the applications because they are part of the requirements in the Head Start Act. Basically it is a paradox - they have to prove they are following the act in their grant proposals. If they can't use those words, they can't prove their adherence to the criteria. 

Salient Segments of the Act: 

See 42 U.S.C. § 9831 et seq 

1. Language Regarding "Disability" and "Special Needs"

The administration's list flagged "disability" and "special needs," but the Act requires a specific percentage of enrollment be dedicated to these children.   

• Section 640(d)(1): "The Secretary shall establish policies and procedures to assure that, for fiscal year 2009 and thereafter, not less than 10 percent of the total number of children actually enrolled by each Head Start agency and each delegate agency will be children with disabilities."   

• 2. Language Regarding "Race," "Ethnicity," and "Diversity"

While "race" and "diversity" were on the list of terms to limit, the Act mandates that programs be "culturally and linguistically appropriate."

• Section 640(a)(5)(E): Requires the Secretary to "develop and implement a system... to ensure that Head Start programs are culturally and linguistically appropriate" and to account for the "ethnic and racial" diversity of the children served.

3. Language Regarding "Tribal" and "Native American" Populations

The "banned" list included "Tribal" and "Native American," but the Act creates a specific legal designation for these programs.

• Section 637(12): Defines "Indian Head Start program" as a program operated by an Indian tribe (as defined by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act).

4. Language Regarding "Pregnant Women" and "Gender"

The administration sought to replace "pregnant women" with "pregnant people" or remove the term entirely; however, the Head Start Act uses "pregnant women" as a specific eligibility category for Early Head Start.

• Section 645A(c)(2): "Enrolled participants... shall be low-income pregnant women and families with children under age 3."

5. Language Regarding "Trauma" and "Mental Health"

The list sought to limit terms like "trauma-informed," but the Act explicitly requires programs to provide these services.

• Section 641A(b)(3)(B)(iii): Mandates that performance standards include requirements for "health, mental health, and disability services."

Contact Information: 

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce for the 119th Congress (2025–2026) is the primary legislative body overseeing education and labor policy.

Leadership & Key Contacts

• Chairman: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI)

• Ranking Member: Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA)

Official Contact Information:

• Mailing Address: 2176 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515

• Telephone: (202) 225-4527

• Website: edworkforce.house.gov

Relevant Subcommittees

The committee operates through specialized subcommittees that handle specific areas of the Head Start Act and workforce regulations:

• Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education: Chairs Kevin Kiley (R-CA) and Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR).

• Workforce Protections: Chairs Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA) and Ranking Member Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

• Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions: Chairs Rick Allen (R-GA) and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA).

Current Legislative Focus (2026)

The committee has recently held hearings on the following topics:

• "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach" (Feb 10, 2026)

• "Work, Dignity, and Choice in Disability Employment" (Feb 13, 2026)

• "Examining the Policies and Priorities of the Mine Safety and Health Administration" (Jan 22, 2026)

---

References: 

American Council on Education. (2025, August 7). President Trump's Executive Orders (EOs) and Actions Impacting Higher Education.

Ballard Spahr LLP. (2026, February 18). DEI Executive Orders Under Fire: Two Major Appellate Court Challenges Spotlight Legal Ambiguity and Uncertainty. JDSupra.

Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025).

Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025).

Exhibit C to the Declaration of Mary Roe (Doc. 135-1) (Dec. 5, 2025).

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. (2025, January 23). Executive Orders Target DEI Programs and Gender Protections.

Motion to Supplement Record: Doc. 136, describing the list and its impacts (Dec. 5, 2025).

Preliminary Injunction: Issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington (Jan. 7, 2026).

The Head Start Act: 42 U.S.C. § 9831 et seq.

• Purpose: 42 U.S.C. § 9831

• Disability Enrollment Mandate: 42 U.S.C. § 9835(d)(1) (originally Section 640(d)(1) of the Act).

• Cultural & Linguistic Diversity: 42 U.S.C. § 9835(a)(5)(E) (originally Section 640(a)(5)(E) of the Act).

• Indian Head Start Program Definition: 42 U.S.C. § 9832(12) (originally Section 637(12) of the Act).

• Early Head Start Eligibility (Pregnant Women): 42 U.S.C. § 9840a(c)(2) (originally Section 645A(c)(2) of the Act).

• Mental Health & Disability Performance Standards: 42 U.S.C. § 9836a(b)(3)(B)(iii) (originally Section 641A(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act).

The White House. (2025, January 20). Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.

The White House. (2025, January 21). Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal