Friday, September 25, 2026

Admire Dr. Lakisha Ball...she makes so much sense...

 One time, I went to a session where Lakesha Ball started the session out by cooking bacon. Y'all. She's amazing. Even without bacon. Here's my transcript and notes. 

Handouts Presentation


Literacy in Motion

Cleaned session transcript — sponsor remarks by Newsela; keynote by Dr. Lakisha Ball


About this transcript

Source: Automated transcription (Otter.ai) of a live virtual session of Literacy in Motion — a Texas reading-language-arts leadership series — sponsored by Newsela and presented by literacy consultant Dr. Lakisha Ball.

How it was cleaned:

Filler words, false starts, and repeated words removed; sentences smoothed for readability.
Obvious transcription errors corrected (e.g., Newsela, TEKS, STAAR, StudySync).
Speaker labels ("Speaker 1–8") resolved to names where the audio makes them clear (see Session participants).
Original timestamps are preserved at each section and speaker turn.
Square brackets [like this] mark short editorial clarifications; a short phrase that could not be made out is marked [unclear] with a best-guess reading in brackets.
Passages of the story Way Too Cool are quoted as read aloud in the session, not from the published text; the two classroom read-throughs were normalized to match.
Wording stays as close as possible to what was said — this is a cleaned transcript, not a summary.
Pre-session housekeeping chatter (0:00–3:02) removed; the transcript begins with the opening at 3:07.

Session participants

Speaker 3

Ms. Robinson

Moderator

Speaker 4

—

Unidentified (brief interjection; music during an activity)

Speaker 5

Elise K.

Attendee

Speaker 6

Kirsten Sabatka

Newsela

Speaker 7

Nikki Dunlap

Newsela

Speaker 8

Dr. Lakisha Ball

Speaker — literacy consultant

Names were inferred from context in the audio.

Opening and sponsor remarks: Newsela (3:07–9:45)

Ms. Robinson (3:07): Welcome, everyone. We are going to continue to keep this train on time — I don't want to mess up President Gray's track record. Kirsten or Nikki, I'm not sure which of you is sharing your screen — go ahead and get started, and I'll get you off and running.

For this session, welcome to Literacy in Motion. Your speaker today will be Dr. Lakisha Ball. Before she gets started, the sponsor for this session, Newsela, will have a couple of words to say to you all, and then we'll jump into the session afterwards. Ladies, take it away.

Kirsten Sabatka, Newsela (3:50): Hi, y'all. I'm Kirsten Sabatka from Newsela, joined by my fantastic colleague and dear friend Nikki Dunlap. We are excited to be with you here today to talk a little bit about Newsela and the various products we offer, and how we can best support districts in Texas. We're friends with many of you already — you may recognize us — but we come with quite a few solutions. You may know us already for Newsela: the articles, the Lexiles, the quizzes, the write prompts — we're there with you. But we've also added to the family. We also represent Formative, which is our balanced assessment program, and Schoolytics, which is our unified data and tracking program for school districts. So you have us for instruction, assessment, and data — we're like the full picture now. Think of us as here to support you at all ends of that perfect instructional feedback cycle.

Because you already know what's coming your way with Newsela, we just want to share why you love us and why you should stay around. Of course, you know we have Newsela ELA, Newsela Social Studies, our newly relaunched Newsela STEM in partnership with Generation Genius, and our very favorite, Newsela Writing — all supported by our AI-powered teaching assistant, Luna. You love us because of the content and the collections, right? The curriculum complements that support McGraw Hill StudySync and even Bluebonnet this year. And you know we have the capacity for those assignments with quizzes, write prompts, and student polls. But you've probably hung around because we've added a lot of cool features over the last year and a half. Our Luna translation feature now translates articles into 40-plus languages. We also have customizable graphic organizers for teachers to plug into the assignments, plus our standards-based lesson planner — all you have to do now is give us up to three of your standards, and we can create a whole "move and groove" lesson in Newsela for you to support close reading and literacy practices, no matter the subject area.

We've also really done a great job listening to your feedback as instructional leaders and boots on the ground in the classroom, and we wanted to elevate your Newsela experience. You see that with Newsela Writing: you can now create writing assignments in Newsela Writing and attach them to very specific rubrics — STAAR, ACT, SAT, AP, multi-genre. You get automatic feedback through Luna to really support students in that writing process. And brand new — fresh out of the gate — we have our fluency practice lessons as well. Now you can turn every article, no matter the Lexile, into a fluency practice for your students, so they can take control and practice with their phonics a little bit. So that's the Newsela umbrella. Here's Nikki to talk about what we're also doing with Formative.

Nikki Dunlap, Newsela (7:01): Some more fun here. We know about all the upcoming changes to the STAAR assessment, and we know how important formative assessments will be — they are now, but they will be even more as the future continues down the road. So we are so excited to share what Formative can offer, in addition to the Newsela content piece. Formative is our instruction and assessment platform: we've got 30-plus question types and TEKS-aligned assignments and assessments. Within Formative, you get real-time data immediately after students take assessments — there's no need to pull and request reports from someone else, or wait for a nightly sync; it is available immediately. And the cool thing is, as Kirsten talked about the Newsela content, you can actually pull the Newsela content into Formative and build broader assessments within the Formative platform with all the different question types. So — super, super excited.

Then, building on Formative — Kirsten, if you want to jump to the next slide — is our Schoolytics by Newsela platform. This really rounds out our offerings. It is a unified data platform: it ingests data from all of the different platforms you're using across your campuses. Think SIS, LMS, behavior, attendance, STAAR data, any other assessment reports — we can ingest that data and allow you to take it and do whatever you want with it. You can pull reports at the building level or at the district level. It is a truly flexible solution, and I love this image on the screen — it shows just a sampling of some of the systems we can talk to.

One of my favorite things about working with Schoolytics: we have what we call educational data analysts — people who were in the classroom and in the district office — and they're an extension of your team. No more need for support tickets. I know a lot of platforms require you to submit a support ticket if you want a report or you need help; we have someone in-house who will do that for you. So it really is a very hands-on approach. This is our newest offering to our family, and I'm so excited to share it with you all today.

I think that rounds out all the things we can do for you. We would love to hear from you — I see some familiar faces in the room, and I know Kirsten does too. Thank you again so much for having us. Our contact information is on the screen; if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to Kirsten and myself. Thank you all again.

Kirsten Sabatka (9:45): …all right — enjoy your day!

Introduction of the speaker (9:48)

Ms. Robinson (9:48): Thank you so much. Yeah — thank you for joining us. I have very fond memories of using you [Newsela] in my classroom years ago, so it's good to see the updates.

All right, team: if you do have any questions, we do have the slides in the chat — I will reshare them in case you did not get that contact information. And now, for the main event: Dr. Lakisha Ball. She's a literacy consultant who has spent over two decades educating students, supporting schools, and helping reading language arts teachers and leaders take the guesswork out of literacy instruction. I know for a fact I've enjoyed her in-person presentation, so I know it's going to be a treat. She has a doctorate in education, multiple teaching certifications, and experience spanning the classroom, higher education, campus administration, regional consulting, and statewide education support — this is someone who understands all the purviews around education. She specializes in transforming complex literacy challenges into practical, research-based solutions that strengthen instruction and accelerate student learning. So I know you're in for a treat. Dr. Ball — it is on you.

Keynote: Literacy in Motion (11:23–1:05)

What hasn't changed (11:23)

Dr. Ball: All right — Ms. Robinson, you give me that glowing, glowing, glowing welcome, and I'm over here like, "Unmute myself, unmute myself." Welcome, welcome, welcome, literacy educators! It is so good to be back in the room with you, to see your faces — and yes, we are here for Literacy in Motion.

Now, I truly believe that just because we're virtual does not mean that we cannot interact, like we've been doing all day with the room. So I'm going to ask you, at times, to put your fingers to the keyboard and respond to some of the things you are hearing and engaging with. I'm also going to check out the chat. There are going to be times where I may say something and I can't look at the chat for the sake of staying on time — because I know Ms. Robinson expressed that, and I'm not messing up this staying-on-time train either.

So, before we start this whole idea of literacy in motion — we've been talking about change, and we understand there is always a thing called change in education. I'm curious: when you think about what's been going on in our classrooms from 50 years ago up until now — and probably what will be happening 10 years from here — what hasn't changed as far as expectations within the literacy classroom? What are we still expecting and holding true for all of our learners? Put your fingers on the keyboard. Let me know what you're thinking, because I'm ready to come to the chat and see what your mindset says around what actually hasn't changed for our readers, our writers, our thinkers. What's been constant for us?

Shona — I love it, I love it, I love it: "The joy for literacy." If you're with me, go ahead, come into the chat. I'm curious about your thinking, because in this piece for the next hour I want you to jump in. We're going to jump into a text. We're going to jump into sample literacy [lessons], and we're going to talk around some things — because there are some things that have changed, and there are things that remain solid, tried and true. It doesn't matter if we're in Texas, Dubai, or whatever beach we might want to be on: there are some things that will always change, but there's constant — constant, for sure.

[Reading from the chat:] Tony — "the way explicit instruction and students' practice looks." "Students need to be in real text and justify thinking." "That consistent making of connections." "The skills required for comprehension." Now I'm going to come out of this chat, because if I stay in there, believe me, we won't move forward — and that won't be okay. I want to make sure that same thinking you've already brought into the chat, you keep it with me entirely.

Now, Ms. Robinson, I'm going to also ask if you would do me a grand favor: if there are questions that come through the chat, please, please, please collect them and let me know — so that by the time we end, I will not have left an educator or a leader here without having an answer for what they may have questions about.

I also want to make sure you have the resources you need in order to fully engage. You have a handout — maybe you already have it printed; maybe you're like, "Wait, I have to print something?" Nope — Ms. Robinson is also going to drop that in the chat just in case. And if you would like links to these slides I'm reviewing with you — by all means, look in the chat; that's coming your way as well.

Now I need you to know: in this time of change, we also know we can't get all the things at one time. One of the things I want you to be aware of is that the learning we're engaging in during this hour is an abbreviated version of the learning I share with educators throughout the state of Texas — because despite the change, literacy in the classroom, authentic literacy opportunities have to remain constant in our classrooms. Our standards are our anchor. They tell us that our students should be reading, writing, listening, thinking, and speaking on a daily basis — and so that hasn't changed. That won't ever change.

Defining the destination (15:26)

Dr. Ball: No matter where we are, we're expecting the same things in order to have literate citizens, literate young adults. So for our hour, here's what our destination is going to be.

First off, I want to make sure that — if we're saying that, to keep literacy in motion, there are some things that have remained constant — we also have to make sure we're aware of what the destination is every time a student sits in that seat, in any teacher's classroom, across this great state. So we're going to start by saying: let's define the destination. We don't just define a destination. I can't say I'm going to El Paso with Cara — who I heard from first in the chat after lunch — I can't say I'm going to El Paso and then not determine how do I get there. I have to plan the route.

Not only do I need to make sure I'm clarifying my learning through the TEKS — the TEKS tell me where I'm going; my TEKS give me my destination — that's not enough, though. I have to be able to plan the route explicitly. I have to make sure every day, when my kids come into the classroom, there's a destination for them. My learning intentions will get me there. I also need to make sure that if they're saying, like regular riders in the car, "Miss, are we there yet? Miss, are we there yet?" — that I can answer that question for them, but they are not tethered to me trying to get that answer. There should be success criteria set long before I ever step foot in that classroom or my students cross the threshold. So we're going to look at how we make certain our learning intentions — the criteria for success or mastery — are clear before students sit in the seat.

We're also going to explore a little bit of checks for understanding. Remember, we only have an hour together — we have more time if you like, but we can talk about that later. We're going to look at how we make the thinking visible. Because I saw you in the chat saying, "Oh, that thinking has to be there." The thinking is always critical in a reading language arts classroom. You see Ms. Robinson nodding her head over there — if she's nodding her head, I don't know if she's making her grocery list for later or if she's engaging with the content. And the reality is, that's the same case for the kids in our classrooms. We have to externalize it. At some point, I need to ask Tonja, "Tell me what you're thinking about X." I need to hear it. I need to see her write it. I need to see her illustrate it. There is something I need her to externalize, so I can see what's going on inside that big brain of hers.

Not only are we going to check progress — we've got to go a little bit further. We're going to talk about the experiences students have from the moment they step foot in our classroom. Because guess what — PSA out there: change, change, change is everywhere. But one thing that has to remain constant in our classroom is that the moment our students take that seat, the experience that's created for them allows them to think deeply about whatever the content is that we set before them, in order to ensure TEKS mastery.

When I say that, I'm saying students are always making meaning — of whatever text they read or view, whatever we put before them. Not only do they make meaning, they have to explain their thinking: through writing, verbally, to peers, to me as their teacher. And not only that — they also have to go a little bit deeper. We want them to analyze the reasons why an author chose to do the things he or she chose to do. Now, with all that being said, we've got to pause — because, of course, I want to give you access to the things you heard me say were coming, in the chat.

Wanderer, planner, or navigator? (19:10)

Dr. Ball: I didn't look at the chat, so I don't know if Ms. Robinson's over there multitasking — she has it all down — but I also want to put it on the screen for you. Now, these slides, or Bitly links — as we all know, they are case sensitive. If for whatever reason you don't type something the way it's typed on the screen or entered in the chat, you're going to call me like, "Wait, that didn't happen. You told me — I'm bamboozled. I don't have access." And I certainly don't want that, right? So you have access. You have access.

Now I want you to put your mind in the brain of where we're going for the learning. You've been seeing maps, and I've talked about going to El Paso — like, yeah, I probably have you in a mindset of, "Where are we traveling? What day of the week is this? Is it time to go somewhere already?" Think about yourself as a traveler. Feel free to come into the chat: which one best represents you? Are you a wanderer, a planner, or a navigator?

When I say wanderer, I'm saying, "Hey, I just want to go for the ride." You can hop in a car and let me take you wherever — you're not concerned, because you're like, "I know we're gonna have a good time." Are you a planner, where you're like, "No, I need to preview the route, because I'm gonna anticipate if things happen — I need to be that person. I know where I'm going. I'm good." Or are you the navigator? "I know the destination, but I also know all the stops. I know the times we're going to be there. I know if I need to monitor and adjust — I know exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to monitor every bit of this route. I can tell you what time we're making it in there. If something happens, I can tell you how we're going to get back on track to make up for that time."

Now I'm seeing these responses in the chat — I see you. Some of us are very similar. I'm like, "I'm not getting in the car with you unless you tell me where we're going." That's just me. All right — I need to know. I need to know.

But now I want you to think the same thing and tell me: who do we want our teachers to be? Who do we want the leaders in our classrooms to be, when we're thinking about effective classroom learning? Same — wanderer, planner, navigator. Which type of traveler works best for effective classroom learning? Because when a teacher stands before that classroom, or navigates that classroom space, the teacher truly is driving students somewhere. That destination could be unknown — the students might know exactly where they're going, depending on what that teacher says or how that teacher takes them to the destination.

Truly, we want our teachers to live in the navigator's lane. We want them to live in that space. We're not saying don't enjoy the ride — we're saying they need to know the end destination. They need to make sure they're monitoring and adjusting as students are getting to that destination — so that we're not dragging kids outside the car, all right? We have to take everyone, and everyone should hear, "You have arrived."

Now, when we think about this effective classroom learning, let's go further. Because when students sit in that seat and they start that car — just like if I tell you "start your car," you're like, okay — you hear all the kids: ready. They are ready for this. If I tell them "begin driving," they're like, "Miss, I was ready." They're probably going to ask me some questions, very much like you are probably asking me now: You told me to start my car. You're asking me to begin driving — where am I going? "Oh, you making it pretty?" That doesn't change what I need to know. Just because I make something pretty doesn't mean I'm getting closer to my destination, either. The reality is, our students take the seat in every class, every day.

Students shouldn't be held hostage (22:51)

Dr. Ball: They should not be held hostage. They should know where they're going. And when we say "keep going" — keep going where? Keep doing what? Oftentimes, they may even ask why: "Why are we doing this?" When students sit down, they shouldn't just be along for the ride. It should be clear where they're going. They should know whether or not they're making progress. They should know whether or not they're there.

So I'm going to ask you — when we think about our next few minutes, when we go into this classroom (because we're going to): when I ask students — or when I ask you — to take a seat, it's almost like I'm asking you, "Start your car." You came in ready from lunch — you're fueled up, you're ready. I shouldn't have to say "begin driving" or "hey, begin learning," and you're like, "Okay, what are we doing? Where are we going?" And I shouldn't keep saying, "Come along with me. Just trust me — we're gonna get there." That shouldn't be the case. It should be clear where we're going.

So, as we jump in — remember, I said we're going to jump into literacy classrooms. I'm going to ask you leaders to go with me into two classrooms. I'm going to first drop into Dr. Ball's class, and then I'm going to drop into Ms. Carr's class. We're going to drop in briefly — about seven minutes in each class. I want you to keep your literacy leader's hat on, but I also want you to put your student thinker's hat on. Play both roles for me for just a moment. When you go into both classrooms, experience it as a thinker. I always say: follow the thinking — it tells you where the growth is. Who's doing the work here?

So I'm gonna stop talking, and I'm gonna ask you: drop into Dr. Ball's class with me. The door is already covered, so I'm already wondering what's going on on the other side of that door. But we're about to go in now. When we go into this classroom, in your handout you are going to see the selection you're going to experience — not the full selection, because remember, this is an abbreviated version of a six-hour learning, simply for [unclear — best guess: "literacy"] leaders. In your handout, look at page two — that's exactly where we're going to go. In Dr. Ball's class, [we'll look at] a selection titled Way Too Cool by Brenda Woods.

We all have our materials — I would hope. Ms. Robinson, if they're blowing you up about me asking for things, I know you've got them taken care of. So we're just gonna drop on back into this classroom. You walked into the class and you see the things you see on the board here — all right, you see these things. Now, the selection we're getting into today, friends, is Way Too Cool by Brenda Woods. I'm already wondering when I see this, "Way too cool" — like, it's too cold in the room? Or I know "too" is "too much" of "way too cool" — like, "I'm too fly"? I'm not so sure. But I need to keep reading. I need to read this thing now.

In order to do today's work, you hear Dr. Ball tell students they're going to use an annotation guide. That annotation guide is on the last page of your handout, just so you're aware, and it tells students, while they're reading, the things they're going to think about, the ways they'll annotate. Now I'm just giving you what she's giving students, and we're gonna keep on moving.

All right, now — scholars, we're gonna go ahead and read this selection. Now, as I read this selection, remember that I have my annotation bookmark that's going to guide me as I go along. So if you will put your weapons in hand — those writing utensils; remember, they're very powerful — when we're reading, we're going to use our annotation guide and our weapon to leave tracks of our thinking on the paper. All right, follow along as I go: if I annotate, you annotate too.

Visit 1 — Dr. Ball's class (26:41)

Dr. Ball [reading]: "He was 13 with chocolate-colored skin, taller than most men, and — as he often told anyone who would listen — way too cool. It was the Friday before Christmas break, and he was looking forward to two weeks of freedom. He grinned as he opened the door."

Now I'm pausing for a moment, because it feels like I'm seeing who might be my main star here, and I'm seeing Aston as his name. I'm seeing Aston as his name — but I'm also noticing it says that my star is "way too cool." He tells anybody who would listen that he's too cool. He's 13, chocolate-colored skin, taller than most men. I'm like, "Boy, you've got a lot going on for you, if these are the things we're comparing you to, right?" All right — I'm noticing: Aston is confidence. I'm gonna annotate that.

But then it goes on with the reading: "Do you have your inhaler, Aston?" his mom called out from the kitchen. The same question came from her lips every morning. Every morning, his grin vanished as he fingered the inhaler in his jacket pocket. "Yeah, I got it," he replied. He gave the screen door a gentle push, stepped outside, and headed to school.

Now I'm going to pause again — pause with me, because I'm seeing something pop up as my setting here. It's Friday before Christmas break. I would think there's a lot that's about to happen, because this kid has to be excited. Everybody knows everybody wants to go on Christmas break — there are two weeks we know we're going to automatically get. So when I see this setting, I'm like, "Okay, so how's that gonna work in here?" It's Friday before Christmas break — my brain says it must be cold outside.

But then I'm also noticing another conflict, another thing that's happening. Mom asked Aston — this confident kid — every day, "Do you have your inhaler? Do you have your inhaler?" And when she said that, his grin vanished. So I have a question here, because I'm wondering: why doesn't Aston seem happy about carrying his inhaler?

Now, I don't know about you, but me being a Mississippi girl, and being the person whose parents raised her pretty tough — I noticed he says, "Yeah, I got it." He gave the screen door a gentle push. I'm like, "Hmm, his parents must be disciplinarians — because if his grin vanishes, he obviously doesn't like that Mom is asking him about the inhaler, but he doesn't slam that door. So he knows something." I'm seeing a lot about this confident character, Aston.

Now, as I continue, I know I'm going to continue using my annotation guide — but I'm not going to continue. I want you to be able to continue, and I want you to read to the bottom of that very first page, using your annotation guide. Here's what I need you to annotate for — very much like I was doing: if it seems important, I want you to notate it, annotate it. Educators, I'm going to ask you — just like you would see Dr. Ball do in her class — keep the judgment out [of it] right now. We don't know. Just follow along as she asks her students: simply read to the end of that page and annotate whatever stands out for you, according to what she told her students. Annotate what seems important.

I'm going to turn my voice off and give you about two minutes to simply continue reading, continue annotating using your annotation guide for what seems important. Let's go for it. …30 seconds, and we'll move forward.

All right, literacy leaders — come back up for me. Come up for air. I don't know if you're like me, but when I first read this, I'm like, "Wait a minute — where are the other pages?" What stood out for you? What stood out for you, Brian? You are hilarious. What did you annotate? What did you notice? Come into the chat — put your fingers on that keyboard so you can put your thinking in the chat. What stood out based on your reading?

Debrief: so what was the destination? (32:56)

Dr. Ball: Now, when Dr. Ball brings that class back, she's asking students the same thing: "What stood out?" Some students know the protagonist as Aston. They pinpoint the dialogue. She brings attention to the tone — the conflict we see: Aston needs an inhaler; he throws the inhaler away. Like, "What are you doing?" He's so focused on this girl named Nikki. They're about to go into the school. I'm looking at Aston lying — and one piece of it says, "You sure you should do that?" — after he throws the inhaler away. And he says, "Ain't nothing." I'm like, "Cool, Aston. Okay, cool kid — I hope you don't need that inhaler."

We even talk further in Dr. Ball's class about the setting and how it's so important right now. As we continue with the reading, Dr. Ball continues to go further and further and further down. Now, here's the thing: as Dr. Ball discusses all these different things with the students, she asks them to now go into a stop-and-jot. She asks them to predict what they think will happen next — and to explain why. Now students write their responses, and — I hate to tell you — we have to go at 1:45, right? The bell has to ring. So I am asking us to come out of Dr. Ball's class for a second.

Now, put your literacy leader's hat on. Let me ask you: what are students supposed to be learning, based on what you saw in those five to seven minutes? Hmm. Based on what you saw, based on what you witnessed — what should students be learning? I don't know if you're like me: I'm like, "I really don't know." They're reading. There's an annotation guide. It's not really about the protagonist — I don't think we know just yet.

[Reading from the chat:] Shona — "just to interact," maybe. I hear you. Jackie — I see you: "I really don't know how to closely read… interact deeply." Cara — "there wasn't a focus." There was a lot going on in that room, though, Cara — there's a bunch of discussion, characterization. [Chat:] "I was just reading the story, to be honest." Okay — so what's the destination in this class? Characterization, like you guys are telling me you're thinking. But the reality for me is, I don't know the destination — and Cara's already calling it out: "There's a lot to really look at here."

Okay, we've got to come out of Dr. Ball's class. You're gonna go right across the hallway and check out Ms. Carr's class. Now, I hate to tell you this: when you go into Ms. Carr's class, she's using the same text. She's using the same bookmark as an annotation guide, and she also uses a stop-and-jot — she's on the same team with Dr. Ball. Now I just wonder what we're gonna see in that class, because I told you before we started: the destination has to be clear.

And when I ask you where Dr. Ball's students were going, you all gave me different answers. And I'm not here to tell you your answers were wrong — because you were not wrong. I saw your answers in the chat. Like, yes, there are a lot of elements to look at. Let's see, there was one more comment that came through, and I don't want to miss it: "A lot of ideas connected together in this passage that are difficult to navigate for many, many students." Yes, I would agree with that. No one's wrong. But the reality is, we don't absolutely know at this point what the destination actually is, because I don't have a focus. And if I don't have a focus, how can I tell you if students are truly growing and moving in the direction we need them to go in with the thinking?

There are so many standards in our reading language arts TEKS where I'm like, "I don't have time to waste just to be all over the place." I have to use my minutes of instruction wisely. Verdict is out. But let's go across the hallway, to Ms. Carr's room. What is it about these windows being covered? I can't see what's going on in here. All right, Bridget, I don't know — but it looks like you're like, "What's happening?" We're about to see.

Visit 2 — Ms. Carr's class (37:14)

Dr. Ball: Let's go into Ms. Carr's class now. When you go into Ms. Carr's class, you see a learning intention: "We're learning to analyze how character qualities affect what happens in a story." Same selection, same author.

Now, here's the thing. Ms. Carr tells her students they're using this annotation guide — but she also tells them: take a sticky note, which she provides to them. Take a sticky note — break that one sticky note in half. Budget cuts, my friends. Budget cuts. And she immediately tells her students to cover theme and setting [on the guide], leaving the focus on characters and events. So during this reading, she's telling students they're only going to focus on characters impacting the plot.

Even the annotation piece — you hear her say: "We're not on a hunt. If it's something that's worth thinking about, we're going to annotate it. We're not hunting for symbols, and we're not loosely putting [in] symbols that don't share our thinking. Everything that we annotate has to connect back to the learning intention."

And then we hear: "What kind of person is a firefighter?" You're already with me — you know I want you to interact with me in the chat. I absolutely do. And if you're like, "But wait, my lunch is kicking in" — come on, we've got to kick back against that lunch. We want to win here. What kind of person is a firefighter?

The teacher starts by saying this, and she starts to hear: "Brave." "They're courageous." "Loyal." "Confident." "Tough." "Strong." It's like, "Okay, baby, okay — I see what you're thinking here." The things the students are saying are the words a firefighter would use — like I've never heard a firefighter actually talk [like that]. So if they talk, what might they say? "Where's the fire?" "Anyone trapped?" They're not like, "Ooh, where'd you get that outfit from, Ms. Bridget? Ooh, I kind of like that — did that come from Amazon? Did it take two days?" They're not saying any of those things. They're strategic with their words, their actions. They're running inside of places we're oftentimes running out of.

So the teacher is asking students: "What made you say the firefighter is brave, courageous, or loyal?" The students are talking about the firefighter's decisions, right? Or even — guess what — their reactions as well. Because there are some things that may scare us — the way we react lets us know we're scared. But for a firefighter, the way they react lets us know: "Oh, they may be scared, but they're brave — because they're doing something in spite of it."

So the same skill that Ms. Carr tells her students — "you're doing these, [so] you can tell me what kind of person a firefighter is" — these are the same type of skill I want you to use today. You've seen a firefighter in real life. You have your perception of a firefighter based on their words, actions, reactions, and decisions. You're taking that same learning into today's work. And so today, we're learning to analyze how character qualities affect what happens in a story.

Now, if you hear me say that, you're probably like, "Qualities, Ms. Carr? What does that mean?" When I think of qualities, it's very much like what you did when you saw the firefighter: you look at the words, the reactions, the decisions. All of those things help us determine qualities, right? They signal qualities for us — because an author doesn't just come out and say, "Oh, Ms. Robinson is prideful." No. The author is going to paint it for us — paint that picture of those qualities through Ms. Robinson's words, her reactions, her actions, even her decisions. So in today's lesson, those are the things you're going to look for.

And you even hear Ms. Carr say: "So, what type of questions should you be able to answer, to let me know that you have met this learning intention — that you're being successful? What are some of the things you should hear in this lesson?" Feel free — I want you to come into the chat and tell me: based on this learning intention, if Ms. Carr is focused, what are some of the things you ideally want to hear students say, or think about, or do?

Success criteria: what should we see? (41:27)

Dr. Ball: What should we see in Ms. Carr's classroom in order to see that she's successful? What should we see? [Chat:] "What characters say — that showed you what they are like and how they solve or cause problems." Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. "Annotating for words, actions, reactions, decisions" — spot on. All right. I should also notice how it says analyze how a character's qualities, right? Qualities. So all of these things — but how does it affect what happens in the story, right? So they're connecting those qualities to events that are actually happening.

So now, all of the things you're hearing are things Ms. Carr is asking her students, too: "What should I hear or see you doing? What should I hear or see you saying, to make sure that you know you're successfully moving toward or meeting this learning intention?" Now we've got to stop talking about her learning intention and jump into her lesson, to see how aligned she is to it — since she tells them up front, "This is what we're learning."

Now we're gonna read the selection Way Too Cool by Brenda Woods. As we read, I want you to make sure we're on the lookout for qualities of a character and how those qualities might affect what happens in the story. All right — weapons in hand. We already know we're reading with our annotation guide. We don't annotate just everything. If we see a character quality — or something that lends itself to the quality — we're going to pause for a minute and think about that, and then we're going to see if we can see how it affects what happens. Let's jump in.

"He was 13 with chocolate-colored skin, taller than most men, and — as he often told anyone who would listen — way too cool. It was Friday before Christmas break, and he was looking forward to two weeks of freedom. He grinned and opened the front door. 'Do you have your inhaler, Aston?' his mom called out from the kitchen. The same question came from her lips every morning."

Every morning. So let's pause for a second, because I'm noticing: chocolate-colored skin, taller — like, I'm seeing he's handsome here. It matters why we bring attention to this, right? And he seems to also tell anyone who would listen that he's "way too cool." I don't just walk up to a person — anybody who would listen to me — and say, "Hey, you know what? I love literacy, and I can teach it. I would love to teach." Like, "Who are you, lady, and what is your problem, right?" So if Aston's doing this, that lets me know Aston must be a confident kid — because even if he would say this to anybody who would listen, that signals confidence. It could signal cockiness. What does it signal to you?

But it doesn't stop there. I even see "way too cool" — it makes me think about that connection back to the title, and I'm like, "Huh — will this come up later?" So I'm going to underline that. But I'm also noticing another quality, possibly: I'm seeing he's confident, but because his mom asked him every morning, "Do you have your inhaler?" — I'm wondering: is he forgetful, or just plain stubborn? Does he ignore his asthma? Now, I have a daughter who has a peanut allergy, and every morning I'm asking her, "Sanaya, do you have your EpiPen?" Because guess what — she's forgetful, and I don't want her to have an episode at school. So I'm putting my exclamation point there, but I'm also noting that quality: forgetful. Stubborn.

It goes on: I'm seeing his grin vanish. His grin vanished — he wears his emotion, so he's definitely an emotional person. But we've got to keep reading. So let's pick up:

"His grin vanished as he fingered the inhaler in his jacket pocket. 'Yeah, I got it,' he replied. He gave the screen door a gentle push, stepped outside, and headed to school. Rosa Parks Middle School was a mile from his house, and unless someone gave him a ride, he walked. 'Take the bus,' his Pops said, sighing, when it was cold. 'The bus ain't cool,' Aston replied. 'You have asthma,' his Pops would say. 'Tell me something I don't know,' Aston wanted to say."

Confident, forgetful, stubborn (45:44)

Dr. Ball: Now I'm going to pause there just for a moment, because I'm noticing his grin is vanishing, possibly because he has to take an inhaler with him. Like, that's weird to me. My daughter wants her inhaler — she doesn't want to go to school without it, because she's had a reaction to peanuts before, and she knows how deadly and serious it is. So it makes me wonder: is he embarrassed about needing an inhaler, or does he not think that inhaler is cool? What is this kid's issue?

So right now, I have to agree with Ms. Tonja: he cares too much about being cool right now, right? And so I'm seeing that quality in him. Even when his dad says, "Hey, take the bus" — and why? Because it's cold outside — instead of him saying "Okay," he says, "The bus ain't cool."

So I see that Aston is confident. He's possibly forgetful. I see he's stubborn, based on what he says back and forth to his dad. But I'm also seeing that — hmm — this Aston, he's so wrapped up in his image. He's concerned about what he looks like or how others perceive him.

Now, at this point, ladies and gents, I'm going to ask you to read to the end of the page. We're going to keep reading — we're constantly looking at qualities. Notice how I didn't stop at paragraph two, about Friday before Christmas break: that didn't tell me anything about his qualities, right? Because we're looking at qualities and how those qualities may impact what's happening. So I want you to continue reading to the end of the page. I simply want you to read with a peer, and I want you to determine: what qualities does Aston show us, and how might those qualities affect what happens?

Now, Ms. Carr gives students a few minutes to read. She plays a little music in the background after a while, and then she comes back and has a discussion with students: "We already talked about Aston being confident — we saw that in the first line. Now I'm seeing some other qualities [from] when you were reading and discussing. What other qualities are you seeing that Aston is showing us?" We see: concerned about his image. She's annotating on the board some of the things students are saying: he's carefree; he's stubborn; he's desperate — desperate for Nikki's attention; we're getting details. He's also irresponsible — because he doesn't want to take that inhaler; but he takes it, and then he throws it away, right?

And so now the teacher also layers in a thinking stem, to ask students to share with a peer: based on what you see of Aston, how do you think that quality is going to impact what he does later? Students pause, turn and talk — and then finally, again, a stop-and-jot. Ms. Carr asks students: "How might Aston's qualities eventually help solve — or make worse — the conflict?"

Now, here's the thing: we have to leave Ms. Carr's class as well. But we stayed in both classes around the same amount of time. We saw both teachers reading the same selection. We saw both teachers using the same annotation guide. We saw both classes reading, listening, writing, speaking, talking. But here's the question, as we come out of that class and debrief as leaders: what were students supposed to learn in Ms. Carr's class — and why was there a difference in those classes? Come into the chat; let me know what you're thinking.

What were they supposed to learn in Ms. Carr's class? Why was there even a difference — [when] they used the same text? So imagine — hey, they clearly didn't plan together, but there was a difference. [Chat:] "I noticed it too." Why was there a difference? This is what teachers need to see. [Chat:] "From beginning to end." I'm right there with you, Angela. From the beginning, Ms. Carr told the students what the learning intention was. We couldn't easily say, "Okay, Ms. Carr — Dr. Ball, I need you to put the learning intention on the board." But that doesn't solve the problem.

"The target says everything" (50:05)

Dr. Ball: Latanya — here's the thing. It is so funny how that target — Cara, you nailed it; you all are nailing it in the chat — the target says everything. If I don't know the destination, I'm just taking all the kids for a ride. And I hate to tell you — I love that Dr. Ball has "Doctor" in front of her name — but the reality is, I don't know where she's taking her students. They're gonna wander in the wilderness, and I hope for not 40 years, simply because she has no destination.

It is clear that Ms. Carr tells her kids from the beginning. She launches based on what they already know, to help them tap into those same skills before applying them to the text. She's not cherry-picking and hunting with that annotation tool; she's using it as a resource to guide. She says, "Hey, we're not annotating everything — we're annotating for our focus." So although both teachers are trying to read for comprehension, one teacher is going to go further and faster, because there is focus. There is a target. There is a target.

So we want to also make sure every second of instruction is aligned to that target. So now we're gonna keep on going with our time. When we ask students in Dr. Ball's or Ms. Carr's class, on that same campus, to take a seat, they should know where we're driving them. It shouldn't be just, "Stay with me — you're gonna find out. I'm excited about the lesson." It doesn't matter how excited I am about the lesson: I'm wasting instructional time if there is no clear destination. Students should know: "We're learning to analyze how character qualities affect what happens in a story."

Now we've got to keep this train moving, because I already know I've got a time limit — it's 1:34, and we only have about 10-ish minutes left. So let's keep this ride moving.

So: we see the destination, and we see what it looks like when there is no clear destination. It's like there is learning happening in here — and as an instructional leader, as a previous administrator, I can tell you: it's easy to walk into a classroom — a literacy class, any class — and see stuff happening. Notice I said stuff. We can see stuff happening, and it could be the wrong stuff. We can walk into a literacy classroom and see students reading, writing, listening, thinking, speaking, and automatically say, "Oh, they were so engaged." But if they were not headed to the right destination, they're just doing stuff. They're just "task" at that point — because there is very limited growth that could possibly happen in a classroom that doesn't have a destination.

All right. So when we talk about this destination, we map it out. We look at the TEKS — they tell us where we're going. We also have to create clear learning intentions. Now, on page two in your handout, you're going to see a self-assessment. I always like to put a self-assessment in front of our teachers — because guess what? It's another check for understanding. We're going to talk about check progress next, but I want to see where we are now. Due to time, I'm not going to spend a ton of time on the self-assessment, but I want you to check it out: indicate whether you agree or disagree with each statement. And this is something I always tell teachers: I don't care if you box it, highlight it, underline it — do whatever works for you. I am not your boss, all right. But do you agree or disagree with each statement?

And then — I often tell teachers, "I'm not hovering over your shoulders." That's a lie. I do, when I'm in a room training. If I'm on a campus, I do walk around, because I want to see what they're thinking. On one side, it says: "Before you learn about learning intentions, success criteria, [and] checks for understanding" — these are our foundations for what we do in a classroom. They are our tenets for literacy instruction. I need to know where I'm going, because a bulk of our literacy work rests inside kids' brains.

Self-assessment (54:07)

Dr. Ball: So that makes it even more complex for us — so we've got to be clear. Based on the self-assessment, I ask: do you agree or disagree with each statement? I even want to know which statement gives you the most pause. So I'm gonna play a little music and give you about one minute to just skim. And which question — which number, out of the seven — do you think will give your teachers the most pause? Which one do you think would trip them up?

Music plays — "Fast Car," Tracy Chapman

What a learning intention is — and isn't (55:07)

Dr. Ball: All right — only because time is chasing on my heels, I've got to pause there. I'm curious: based on what you thought, which statement would possibly be the hardest for your teachers — or cause your teachers, or even you, to pause?

All right. When I think about that assessment — I'm thinking about Angela: you [said] "wording them in such a way that kids understand the target." They're — oops, they were supposed — oh, I need to keep going [in the chat]. All right, I need to keep going. I think number two would give teachers the most pause. I even think about number one — Susan, I would agree with you. Number four, Angela. I even think about number one.

Look at number one: "A learning intention should tell students exactly what they will do during the lesson." It's like — watch out, watch out, watch out — because learning intentions are not about what you're doing; it's what [you're learning]. Because [otherwise] you're going to complete some task: "We're going to read a selection." "We're going to use an annotation tool." That's not a learning intention. It's not. A learning intention tells me exactly what I am going to learn during that class period.

So when I think about a learning intention, I want to be explicit. I don't want to assume that if I go from one district to the next in the state, everybody's on the same page with what we're saying — because even our acronyms change. [Take] the TEKS Resource System — you could confuse it with TRS, the Teacher Retirement System. And there are a ton of acronyms in education. A learning intention is that statement of exactly what students are expected to learn.

So when I think back to our standards — I showed you a vertical alignment of just the standards that are operating for this lesson, Way Too Cool, on pages four and five of your handout — you see the essential TEKS as well as the bundled TEKS. Throughout the lesson — for that full training — teachers get to see how instruction stays aligned to that learning, to that essential TEKS, while those bundled TEKS are also brought in.

But the real question that gets teachers: could students truly master everything that's described in the [readiness] student expectation in one typical class period? Here's what gets them. And Tonda — you are over there, and I don't want you to get whiplash whatsoever, because you are absolutely correct: it is very difficult for a teacher to say they're going to accomplish mastery for this particular standard or that particular standard — especially when we have standards bundled. And I didn't even bring in the foundational standards that support what we do every single day. Typically, it is not possible. So we free teachers by sharing that with them: it is not possible, right? It is not possible. We have to be strategic.

So even based on what we're seeing in the learning intention alone — if I throw that vertical alignment out there, after showing the full sequence — I see, here's my first day in blue; here's the second day added, because it's a two-day lesson, right, in purple. I see the vertical alignment for the standard. Based on what this teacher is doing, you should be able to even tell me what grade level teacher Ms. Carr or Dr. Ball is. You should be able to tell me based on what we see alone. If you're like, "I want to take a stab at it," feel free — don't put it in the chat; I don't want you to feel like, "Oh, they saw my answer and I was right or I was wrong." You can — it's totally up to you.

But the reality is, this is a seventh-grade teacher that we're seeing. We don't want the teacher to overshoot the destination: don't drive past it — drive to the destination. And definitely don't stop short. Because if I only talk about internal and external responses, it's like I didn't get to the destination. I need to talk about how characters' qualities influence the events and the resolution of the conflict. Otherwise, I stop too soon.

Unpacking "analyze" (58:58)

Dr. Ball: [Otherwise] I stop short of my drive — and I don't want to have some great instruction and still not meet mastery. So when I think about the expectation you saw in that little short piece of learning, I also have to ask myself: how did I get there? I need to unpack what's expected of me. I need to ask: what am I expecting students to learn during the lesson?

If I see "analyze," I know that is not just an isolated thing that happens — oh, this is a process. It takes students being able to take one plus next plus this, to be able to show me analysis. What do I mean by that? When I see this, I should be able to tell what a character's thoughts, feelings, words, and actions are — plus, I should be able to go further and say how those responses move the story forward. That's how I get my learning intention: "We're learning to analyze [how] characters' thoughts, feelings, words, and actions move the story forward."

I even have to ask myself: if I saw this in the classroom, would they be on day one or day two? Where would they be in the sequence of learning? All right — I don't see that they're just [at the beginning], that they're going to the resolution. So it's like, "Oh, so this is just the practice one?" "Yeah, this is what they did last year. I can build off of what they did last year. I'm not starting from scratch — but I need to take them further than last year, right?"

You can turn this into a question, too. Of course — I can turn learning intentions into questions. You may say, "I don't want to give it all away to them." Turn it into a question that they have to answer before that class period is over.

When it all boils down, learning intentions truly have to be accessible, student-friendly — I already saw it in the chat. It should be clear to everyone. It should be accurate to what the TEKS actually [say]. And it should be actionable learning that our students can absolutely do in that class period.

So, if you look back over what were some of those things you saw in Ms. Carr's class — you'll see that, as she continues to move forward, she has to get to the level of "we're learning to analyze how character qualities affect what happens in a story." So the learning can't stop there. She has to move forward. And with her moving forward, she continues to ask students to read the selection, annotate that selection — but she's not continuing to guide them. She's allowing students to work with partners. She's monitoring instruction within the classroom. She's looking for students catching subtle details that show what that character's qualities are — but not only the qualities: how those qualities impact what happens.

The teacher even pulls out — if you are looking at my visual — an old-school character doll. You're like, "What? These still exist?" Tried and true. Thinking is always what we want. But not just a character doll — she's asking students: "What do you notice about the character? Give me evidence. What do those details reveal about the character — and how does the character quality affect what happens?"

So, in one paragraph, we're noticing a student [note]: "Oh — Aston tipped his head to the side and smiled at Carlita. He didn't even speak when she spoke to him; he just showed his teeth." Okay, so what does that reveal? "Oh, he's confident." "Oh, or he's cocky." Okay. So what happens — how does the character quality affect what happens? Because Aston wants us to see him as cool, he just smiles confidently. You are also seeing additional examples happen in that room with Ms. Carr.

Now, as we continue to read, Ms. Carr is, of course, supporting her students with sentence frames — very similar to what you saw in her class earlier. Now, sentence frames are not just "hey, it's the solution to the thing, and then we get to just move forward." She shows students how to use those frames in order to take that thinking deeper — before she ends with an exit ticket for that day.

Checks for understanding, and day two (1:02:58)

Dr. Ball: [The exit ticket asks:] "Which quality of Aston's makes his conflict more difficult to overcome?" — which quality — and then they have to support their answer with evidence from the selection.

Now, when it all is said and done, Ms. Carr has many different checks for understanding she could do within that classroom to see whether or not students are making progress toward the learning. And the reality is, there are quite a few things she can continue to do even on the second day. Just to give you a glimpse before we close this thing out and transition to our next presenter: on day two, she even takes students further, so that they can analyze through the author's eyes. She wants students to be able to use what they learned on day one — pulling those character qualities, talking about how they impact or affect the selection. But then: okay, let's look a little bit further at how it brings resolution. But not just how it brings resolution — how does the setting enhance that? How does the language? The point of view that's used? Even the purpose — why did the author even write this? What message does the author have for us?

So we're asking students to go a little bit further — asking them to look at the setting, looking at how that setting actually impacts what we get within the selection — so that students eventually can get to the ultimate writing task for this learning: explaining how Aston's qualities influence the events and the resolution of the conflict.

Now, the reality is, with our abbreviated time, you were able to see students go from literal thinking to — [us] leading students to — inferential thinking. Just like in the real world: we see lights on a car — "Wait, is he pulling me over?" "Wait, somebody's speeding." Or, "Oh, I can infer there is an emergency. I'm glad it's not me — somebody else better than me." And two — just like we would do in the real world: if we saw additional service vehicles, we're like, "Something serious is going on." And if you're like me, I'm like, "Let me stop and pray — or let me keep rolling and pray with my eyes open — because there is something serious happening here."

We want students to tap into these same skills in our classroom, to ensure that they get to TEKS mastery. We want all of our students to be successful in the classroom. And in order to be successful, they have to have a clear destination. We have to plan the route for them. We have to make sure that those learning intentions and success criteria align to what our standards say. We're consistently checking their progress and always creating experiences — oh, how I wish we could have stayed in Ms. Carr's class — but we're creating experiences that allow them to be successful.

Now, ladies and gents, I appreciate you hanging with me. Chris, thank you for the opportunity. If there are additional questions, feel free to put them in the chat — I'll hang back as well. But information is on the screen; you know how to reach me based on my contact information in your handout. Thank you so much for all that you do leading literacy across our great state of Texas.

Closing (1:05:58)

Ms. Robinson: Dr. Ball — this has been an incredible session. Incredible. And I promise, when I'm repeating some of your quotables, I will give full credit. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you all for your time and attention. We will reshare the links and the slides that Dr. Ball so graciously shared with us. The next session will start at 2 p.m. — I have put the link for that session in [the chat] for you. We will open the room probably three to four minutes before that session starts. Please enjoy your break. But I know, if y'all are like me, I'm full and I'm gonna need to go walk off some of this extra energy. It was amazing. Thank you all. Enjoy your break. Dr. Ball — for real. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Wiley Blevins Spoke at CREST, Impressed I Was...

 Wiley Blevins spoke at CREST last week. I think he is doing fascinating work. Here's the transcript of my notes: 

Early Foundational Skills Instruction: What's Working and Why?

A webinar transcript featuring Dr. Wiley Blevins

  • Dr. Wiley Blevins — keynote speaker; author, educational consultant, and researcher; SVP and associate publisher, Reycraft Books
  • Tonja Gray — host; president, CREST
  • David Webb — Curriculum Associates
  • Dr. Anita Archer — author of Phonics for Reading (featured in a video clip)
  • Robert Downs — Benchmark Education

Tonja Gray: I hope that you had a great time of stretching your legs and getting some refreshments during our last stop. We are about to leave the station on the fifth leg of our journey today, so I am going to turn it over to our special guest who is here to talk to us from Curriculum Associates. So let me quit sharing my slides here and turn it over to Mr. David Webb, who is going to talk to us about his sponsorship this afternoon.

David Webb (Curriculum Associates): Thank you so much, Miss Gray. I appreciate that intro. Great to be here with everyone. We're very thankful for this partnership with CREST.

A little bit of my background: I taught high school for eight years on the ELA side. I was a speech teacher in the Frisco area, and I left the classroom to get into this world on the curriculum side, the publishing side, and I've been doing this since 2012. So, in some form or fashion, I've been supporting or working in public schools for over 20 years. And my wife is an educator — she is actually the literacy specialist in her district who oversees all the Reading Academies, and she coaches me up whenever I don't understand something about reading. Thankfully, she has to do that not too often anymore, particularly since I've had the incredible privilege of being at Curriculum Associates. We're passionate about literacy, and I think that's evident by the people with whom we partner. Dr. Anita Archer is one of our biggest partners. She is incredible, and we are humbled and so blessed that she authored one of our programs, Phonics for Reading, and it's very powerful. Her big message is that kids need explicit instruction, and that's very much aligned with the science of reading. She doesn't think that's negotiable at all, and I appreciate that.

I want to start us off with a really quick YouTube short from Dr. Archer, and then I'll briefly let you know about some of the things that we do to support literacy, and then I'll let y'all get on to the main event. All right? Does that sound good? Okay, thank you. Let me share my screen here.

Dr. Anita Archer (from video): Children's lives are precious. What they learn is precious. Learning to read and write well is precious and necessary in our society. We must use the best practices every day in every way to make a difference with our students. It can happen. It takes energy, but it feels so good to us as teachers when they learn. The more successful you are, the more motivated you will be to put energy into it. It requires leadership that's tenacious. Using what we know from research makes a difference. Teach them well, and we change lives.

David Webb: All right, thank you. I think we all can agree that was inspirational, for sure. We'll dive right into just a few slides. Again, I'm David Webb. There's my email address if you'd like to get in touch with me — happy to provide you more information. We just heard from Dr. Archer, and I love this quote by Dr. Archer: "I'm certain that you believe, as I believe, that reading is a civil right. It totally changes everything if you are a reader or not. So we've got to continue to use our very best knowledge and our energy to ensure that students are readers." I think we all can agree on that.

Again, Dr. Archer is the author of our Phonics for Reading program, and that is for grades 3 through 12 for striving readers. Not only do we have this solution for striving readers, but we also have you covered on foundational literacy — these are ESSA-proof. We've got Magnetic Foundations, which is phonics for English foundational skills, and then Mosaico: Fundamentos — which is a blast to say; I never get tired of saying that. This is Spanish foundational skills built from the ground up to be authentic — beautiful for a dual-language setting. Really, these two programs, I'm very proud of these. If you'd like more information on these, there are QR codes, or I'm happy to come out to your district or service center and talk more through this.

We also have personalized instruction in our i-Ready platform. I think you guys have heard of i-Ready before. We have an amazing i-Ready assessment that then drives this personalized instruction, and we also have math. But I know that today's focus is on reading, so I just wanted to highlight that we have personalized instruction for reading. Again, there's a QR code there if you'd like more information.

And then here are some helpful resources for y'all. We've got a QR code and a link to Dr. Archer's book on explicit instruction. There's a QR code to Phonics for Reading, and then I put some bonus info here. I put a couple of podcast episodes that Dr. Archer did for us on our Extraordinary Educators podcast — a great podcast, but these are really two episodes for the record books with Dr. Archer. So please feel free to listen to those. Again, I'll put my email address back up. Please feel free to contact me, and I'll put these slides in the chat as well so you have access to those and all the QR codes. They're hyperlinked — if you're on your computer, you can click them, or if you want to look at them on your phone, you can scan the QR codes.

Anyway, I just want to thank you guys so much for this time. Thank you for the opportunity to support such a really fantastic organization that is moving the needle to make sure that every kid is a strong reader, because that opens up tremendous doors of opportunity for children. Thank you for the work that you do. Please let me know if I can help support in any way. Thank you so much.

Tonja Gray: Thank you, Mr. Webb. We always appreciate Curriculum Associates, and we appreciate you being a longtime supporter of Crest. We appreciate you so much. You definitely hit a few things for me — your wife and I could have some fun together talking about the Reading Academy, and then I love me some Dr. Archer.

David Webb: Well, that's great. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that.

Tonja Gray: All right. Before we get into our last bit of business this afternoon and hear our closing keynote speaker — who I cannot wait to hear from — I need to let you know that we do have some information on our nominations. You guys had a chance to nominate yourselves for office today. We did not have anyone who decided to nominate themselves for president-elect, but we did have one candidate who nominated herself for secretary, so at the end of our session this afternoon we will reveal her name and vote her in by acclamation. We also have a couple of people who have decided they want to join us as regional reps, so we will share that information with you at the end of our session today.

But I really want to get on to our keynote speaker, because this is one person I have been dying to hear from for a long time. When I read his phonics book, it rocked my world. So I am super excited, and I am so thankful for Robert Downs. He is here from Benchmark Education. They helped us to bring Dr. Wiley Blevins to you this afternoon. We're very thankful for both of our sponsors this afternoon, who have helped to support us and helped us bring in some quality speakers for you today. Mr. Downs, would you like to say something?

Robert Downs (Benchmark Education): Oh, just real quickly: thank you guys for having us. I know you guys are going to enjoy Dr. Blevins, so I'm not going to take up a lot of time because I know you guys are pressed for time. Just want to thank you again, and anything we can do to support your districts — we're certainly here for you. I'll put all my contact info in the chat, but I'll turn it back over to you, Tonja, and let Dr. Blevins keep going.

Tonja Gray: All right. Well, now on to our closing keynote speaker. Dr. Wiley Blevins has a doctorate in education, and he studied at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and at Bowling Green State University. He is an author, educational consultant, and researcher, and has taught both in the United States and South America. Wiley has written over 17 books for teachers, including A Fresh Look at Phonics, Phonics from A to Z, Differentiating Phonics Instruction for Maximum Impact — awesome book — and Choosing and Using Decodable Texts. He has authored several phonics and reading programs, and wrote the phonics brief for the International Literacy Association, "Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction." Wiley's current focus is on adaptive technology, differentiated professional development, and children's literature. Wiley has written over 100 children's books and is SVP and associate publisher at Reycraft Books, a new imprint focused on publishing books by authors and illustrators from underrepresented groups. So we are very excited to welcome you this afternoon, Dr. Blevins. It is your floor.

Dr. Wiley Blevins: Thank you so much. Let me share my screen. Can you see it? Yes. Excellent. So, welcome, everyone. Good afternoon. I'm thrilled that you're able to join me today for our brief chat about early foundational-skills instruction: what's working and why.

Since I only have a little bit of your time today, I'm going to forego the humorous and heartwarming introduction that I usually give — that takes about 10 minutes — and just jump right in. And I hope that's okay. Of course, you will be getting a copy of this PowerPoint, so if there's anything that I go through too quickly, you'll be able to revisit it.

I wanted to start with the big takeaway of today's session. The big takeaway is that when it comes to phonics instruction, we know what works. I'm going to say that again: we know what works. The big challenge is getting what works into every single classroom, so that all of our students can benefit from this huge body of knowledge that we have about what works and why it works.

We're going to talk a lot about things centered around the science of reading. Some people call it the science of literacy, which includes reading plus writing plus language development. But some of the things I want to share with you today are really in other bodies of research — around, for example, the science of instruction: how we deliver this instruction really makes a difference. A lot of the work that I'm doing here in New York City is centered around how we are delivering the instruction that we are providing for our teachers and students. And then the science of learning: what needs to be in place? What are the conditions in which the learning actually sticks? There's a new book — if you haven't seen it, it's called The Canon of Literacy, by Dr. Pullen — that really talks about these three bodies of knowledge, these three sciences. I highly recommend it if there's a new professional-development book you want to dig into, because it explains them quite nicely and gives a lot of really discrete examples that can benefit the work that you're doing in your districts.

So when it comes to phonics instruction, there are seven characteristics of strong phonics instruction. I have them listed here; I won't go through all of them, but several of them are related to key instructional routines — such as blending, the primary strategy we teach children to sound out words. There are different ways we can do it, and the research is very clear about the best way to do it; we'll talk about that in just a second. There are also routines around dictation, around high-frequency words — and I do a ton of work here in New York City around the reading of connected text, or decodable text, and all the things that we can and should be doing with these very simple texts to elevate the learning that is happening in our classrooms. We'll touch upon a lot of these things throughout the session today.

The work that I started quite a while ago — I think this work started around 2010 — really led to me uncovering these 10 big reasons why phonics instruction sometimes fails, and many of these are connected to these sciences, these bodies of knowledge that we'll talk about. For example, the first one — an inadequate or nonexistent review and repetition cycle — is connected to the science of learning. What conditions need to be in place for that learning to stick? All the research around cumulative practice and distributed practice, and the intensity of the practice — and we'll dig into some things that we've had to do here in New York City to make sure that's happening for our students.

We know that phonics instruction must be explicit and systematic, but it also needs to be cumulative. It needs to build, and it needs to extend over a longer period of time than what we sometimes find in our instructional materials, in order for it to stick for all of our students.

The paper that Tonja mentioned that I wrote for the International Literacy Association — "Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction" — is available. It's free. It's online at the International Literacy Association. If you can't find it, I can certainly send it to you. It summarizes those seven characteristics of strong phonics instruction and the 10 reasons why phonics instruction sometimes fails. I like using it as an introductory piece when I'm working with schools, because we want to make sure that the materials we're using have that strong phonics DNA, but we also want to make sure that we are consciously, intentionally, and systematically removing those obstacles — those 10 reasons why phonics instruction sometimes fails. Again, I'll touch upon a few of those in our session today.

So, how do we ensure that our phonics instruction is strong? There are a lot of phonics materials out there. Some are better than others. We have what we have. How do we make sure it's the best possible tool for our teachers? Step one really involves us doing what I refer to as curricular surgery, and we do that to strengthen our tier one instruction. We know that if we strengthen our tier one instruction so it meets the widest range of needs in our classrooms, we can significantly reduce the number of students who need tier two and tier three support. I'm going to show you some examples of specific things that I've done in districts — not only in New York but in the surrounding area — where we've been able to accomplish some of that.

As I've mentioned many times, I live here in the Big Apple. You probably recognize this — this is Times Square. I live very close to here; I can actually see Times Square from my bedroom window. It's sort of a loud and busy place to live. But for four years I've been working with schools here in the city as they've been transitioning to structured literacy. This is a massive shift for the largest school system in the United States.

Four years ago I was invited to one of the New York City subdistricts — you don't need to know this, but it's run by a chancellor who's appointed by the mayor. We have all these subdistricts — over 30 smaller districts, each with its own superintendent, that report to the chancellor. I'm actually in a district in Queens — you may have heard of Queens, one of our boroughs here in New York City. What I was asked to do was to set up what we referred to as a lab school: one of the schools was chosen to be my main site — now I have two schools that I'm in all the time — where we would study the first year of this transition, and other schools would visit. We had 10 schools that were visiting us, and we were also studying how we could scale it up so that the second year we could really begin to scale up even more. In our small subdistrict we have about 54 elementary schools, so we're just one of many in New York City.

The school that I am in is in a very challenging situation. When the principal took over several years ago, only 9% of the students were reading on grade level. I go into a lot of schools in New York — it's 8%, it's 9%, it's 15%. This is, unfortunately, not unusual. Most of the students in our school live in poverty. Most of them speak a language other than English at home. So we have some big challenges, and I'm going to share with you some of the things that we're doing to overcome those challenges and really move the needle for our students.

When we looked at that first year and the materials that we had, we wanted to examine our materials with a clear eye against the current research. I'm a huge proponent of finding the best materials possible, but we know that not every material is perfect, right?

Our materials are tools that we need to know really well and to improve if they aren't serving the needs of our students as well as they can. That was my task: to analyze the materials that the district had chosen. We also wanted to do a far better job of utilizing student data, because data was collected, but nothing was being done with it. So we needed to put some systems in place to help teachers do that, and that required me to build in some data-collection points in the instruction and some very simple tools for teachers to use, and some very simple things for them to do with that information. And then, of course, we had to recognize that adult learning was going to be as important as student learning. This was a massive shift for our district. A lot of things were going to be done differently than they had been done before. We didn't want to throw out the great, but we wanted to make some changes for the things that weren't so great, and really start moving the needle for both our teachers and our students, and give teachers those tools.

Here again, I refer to it as curricular surgery, where we look at the instructional materials, compare them to the current research, and look at our data to see what's not clicking, what's not working for us. Our guiding questions were: How does the current research compare to the instructional routines in our materials? And, surprisingly, some didn't connect — I'm going to show you two examples of that in just a second. And what is our data telling us? Are there any disconnects? And there were, that first year. There were some big challenges, because teachers were teaching a lot of X, and the data was showing we're not seeing movement in X. I had to figure out what the problem was. There were things like over-scaffolding. There were things about not spending our time wisely. There were routines that weren't the strongest routines, and all of those things I had to try to fix very quickly for our teachers.

One complication in all of this — and I'm sure all of you are addressing this now — is that there are things the research is very clear about, and there are some things we have some information about but we're still learning, and we really have to tease that out. There are things the research is very clear about in terms of phonics: explicit, systematic, cumulative. We know about orthographic mapping — how we store words into memory so we can automatically retrieve them. We have routines now that really can accelerate that. And we also know some things we should avoid. If we're teaching a phonics lesson, the practice reading that the students have should be tightly connected to the skills we're working on. If we give students a book to practice after a phonics lesson where there are very few words they can sound out, it's not a good practice tool. But then there is a lot in the middle — things around decodable text, things around word walls, things around scope and sequence — that people have very strong feelings about, where the research has given us some information, but we're not quite there yet.

What has happened is that a lot of us in our classrooms are deciding what we think is best, and our preference is sort of overtaking our attention to what the research is showing us and sharing with us. That's where some of the challenges I face every day come into play, because we live in a world right now where what we're talking about is sort of above the surface — a lot of it is in these educational sound bites — and the nuance, where the information really rests, is below that surface. We have to go deeper and really talk about: okay, this is what the research is really saying, and this is how we've applied it to these different student populations.

What's working for whom, and what modifications need to be made? That's the work that I do in the schools, and that's the work that I really love doing, because then we can fine-tune that work to improve the outcomes for our students.

I'm going to give you two examples of the curricular surgery that we did. These might be similar to the things that you're doing.

One was around blending — super important. It's the main strategy we teach children to sound out words. When I first started this work here in New York City and walked into my first lesson, the way the teachers were teaching children to sound out words was something called segmented blending, or segmented phonation. Basically, the teacher would say the sounds of the word segmented — /s/ /a/ /t/. What's the word? — and the children would have to put those sounds together. I had never done it that way. I had always done what's called continuous blending, where I would run my finger under the letters and string together the sounds so there were no breaks in between. So we go "sssaat." What's the word? "Sat."

When I saw this, I became very alarmed. My reaction was, "Uh-oh" — partly because I'd never done it that way, but also because the research doesn't support doing it that way. There was a really important study by Linnea Ehri and Gonzalez-Frey that looked at the ways in which we teach children to blend or sound out words — connected (continuous) blending or segmented blending — and found that continuous blending was far superior. In segmented blending, some children weren't able to hold on to the sounds that were separated and would say a word that began with the most recent sound they had heard. Or some teachers were adding a vocalization in between the sounds. If the word is bad, they would go "buh-aa-tuh." Now think about putting those sounds together: "bah-tuh." It's not bad, right? So there were these things standing in the way.

That was the first red flag that the main way this program — used by 85% of the schools here in New York City — was teaching children to sound out words was not supported by the research. Then I looked at the data. We give Acadience here in New York City. I don't know if you're familiar with it; it's just like DIBELS. There's a nonsense-word fluency assessment where children have to read nonsense words as quickly as they can. They might see the letters v-o-g; we want them to say "vog," then "rab," then "zab," just going through those words. What were our students doing? They were looking at the word and going, "vuh... ah... guh... vog? fog?" The strategy we were teaching them was anti-fluency. The scores were horrible, because the way they were attacking words was the opposite of something that would get them to the point where they would become fluent decoders.

So I had to put a stop to that way of blending right away. The students picked it up really quickly. It was a bit harder for some of the teachers, because habits are hard to break if you've been doing something for 10, 15, 20 years. It's hard to make that switch. But once they started seeing how easy it was for the students and how much more efficient it was, they really jumped on board. It was funny: I would go into classrooms, and teachers would get to the blending part of the lesson, and some of them would say, "Now we're going to do continuous blending," and they would look at me and sort of smile. But that was a fairly easy shift. Some shifts in our curricular-surgery journey have been much more challenging. I'm going to share one that's been incredibly challenging, and that's around phonemic awareness.

Oftentimes in education, the research is far ahead of classroom practice, as you know. Sometimes it takes 10, 15, even 20 years for it to make its way down into the classroom. Phonemic awareness is one of these areas that we know is so important.

Being able to understand that words are made up of discrete sounds, and being able to segment, blend, and manipulate those sounds, is absolutely essential to becoming a reader and writer. But over the years there have been a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions about what that looks like in a classroom, and people have very strong feelings about it.

I shared this huge body of research with the administrators here in New York City — and there's a ton of it. Just in the last five years there was a meta-analysis (I'm going to share it with you), research studies, papers, around some of the big ideas that actually make a difference in our instruction. Here's a paper by Dr. Brady, and she talked about the strong benefits in kindergarten of connecting the sounds — what you're doing in phonemic awareness — to the letters. If, for example, we are having children segment off the first sound in sat — they say /s/ — then we have them hold up the letter card for S to make that connection. Or if we're segmenting words — after we segment a word into its sounds, then we build it with letters, making that instant connection. She talks a lot about the importance of that.

She also talks a lot about — and this is the first thing that's underlined; I'll just read it — "One of the compelling research findings is that phoneme awareness can be taught to children who lack phonological sensitivity." What does that mean? When we talk about phoneme awareness, we're talking about looking at words, thinking about words at the phoneme — the sound — level. When we talk about phonological sensitivity, we're talking about bigger units, like onset-rime and syllables and things like that. What the research has been very clear about is that once children get to kindergarten, we need to get to the sound as quickly as possible — we can hop over rhyme. Some children have difficulty with rhyme. We don't need to be clapping syllables, because we're not doing multisyllabic words. We need to get to what's going to make a difference for them to sound out words and write words — and that's the phoneme. The research has been very clear.

There was a paper that came out by Dr. Clemens, Solari, Kearns — a whole bunch of big names in our field — about phonemic awareness that talked about the importance of connecting phonemic awareness to print, and that there wasn't a huge body of solid evidence around doing these more advanced kinds of skills for all of our students. There was a study done in Utah that looked at the materials we're actually using in New York City and mandated to use, and found no empirical support for deletion, substitution, or oral-only phonemic awareness instruction — and also found that we were spending so much time doing these oral-only activities that it was taking time away from things that actually would make a difference. That study was in Reading Research Quarterly back in 2021, so not that long ago.

Some other compelling research connected to Dr. Brady's work around getting to the phoneme versus rhyme and syllables and what have you: in 2022, Raffeld et al. found that phonemic awareness outcomes nearly doubled when instruction began at the phoneme level in kindergarten. That was based on two earlier studies, in 2005 and 2011, that found that these larger units — like clapping syllables and rhyme — weren't prerequisites. We'd always been taught for so long: you start at the big unit and go to the small. The research is saying, "Hey, that's not true." You might do some of these things in preschool, yes, but once we get into kindergarten and we're teaching children to read and write, getting to the phoneme as quickly as possible is super important. Even the International Dyslexia Association changed their fact sheet around phonemic awareness, and they said: begin phonemic awareness right away and focus at the phoneme level. You can skip over those phonological-sensitivity activities and combine this instruction with letters and handwriting.

So we have this body of research that's converging. I shared all of that with the administrators in New York, and not a single one changed anything. Not a single one. We need to have conversations about why that happened at a later date.

But some of what I was told was, "Well, it's a district mandate. Got to do it." Even though the research doesn't support it — got to do it. And some of the problems were in the instructional materials, because state departments of education have required these progressions, starting with big and going to small, so it takes a long time to get to the phonemes — sometimes not until kindergarten, sometimes it's after we're asking children to actually start sounding out words. There's this mismatch between what's happening in phonemic awareness and what children actually need to read and write. So we need to catch up to this body of research. I didn't have much success sharing this information with the administrators here in New York City.

But then in 2024, a meta-analysis — which is sort of pulling together all that we know about a topic in a really impactful way — looked at the optimal cumulative dosage of phonemic awareness. I thought, okay, let me share this with the administrators. What they found — you might be familiar with this research, because it's been out for a couple of years now — is that after 10 hours of oral-only phonemic awareness instruction, the effects declined. However, when you combine it with letters, the effects continue to increase, even after 16 hours. That was really powerful. But what does that mean?

What it meant for us here in New York City was that we were mandated in kindergarten, first, and second grade to provide 10 minutes a day, every single day, of oral-only [phonemic awareness] — the materials that we had been given. That means we were doing 50 minutes a week, almost an hour a week, of oral-only. We get to the 10 hours by mid-kindergarten. That doesn't mean there isn't more phonemic awareness to be done — I'm not saying that — but the point is, are we getting the most use out of that time? And when I looked at the phonics materials, phonemic awareness was embedded in so many activities. When the children were sounding out words — they can't sound out words unless they can orally blend — they're showing that they can do that through the application of it with the print. So I don't need to do that oral-only anymore; if they can do it, we've gotten where we need to go. When we were doing dictation, the first thing they had to do was orally segment the sounds, then attach a letter or spelling. Phonemic awareness is embedded. We would do word chains — go from sat to map, map to mat. What are they doing? Orally segmenting and manipulating sounds. It was already embedded. When we looked at that and the minutes we were spending, we were losing up to 12 and a half hours in kindergarten and 25 hours of instruction in first and second grade that could be spent doing other things — other, more impactful things.

I was very frustrated, because we would have these conversations about what our students really needed: "We need a lot of support in spelling and encoding, and I need more time to do dictation and other things." "I can't create minutes." So I was like, "Can I take some of the time from the oral [phonemic awareness]?" Having these really intense conversations about where we get the minutes to do the things we need to do.

So, what we did the second year — just to show you the progression — is that in kindergarten we kept the 10 minutes, but we looked at the activities and only did a subset of the ones that were really impactful, and we tried to connect to print where we could. Then the second half of the year we cut it to five minutes, and we spent the other five minutes doing dictation, doing the spelling, which was super impactful for our kids. In grade one, we cut it to five right away. We focused on just the high-impact, high-priority skills that were connected to reading and writing, and we used that extra five minutes for dictation and doing some writing about decodables. And in grade two, we stopped it. We just assessed the students at the beginning of the year; any students who had phonemic awareness deficits received that during small-group time.

We spent the 10 minutes that had been dedicated to that other work on dictation and writing about the decodables. We had a whole plan in place for writing constructed responses and just some really meaty things that were meeting some needs of our students. In year three, we stopped altogether, because our teachers felt comfortable with the phonemic awareness that was already embedded in the program.

This is what curricular surgery is all about, and it's challenging. Some are easy fixes, and some are more challenging. We had a ton of things that we discovered. I'm not going to talk about these — I just want to show you the enormity of the things that we found. You'll have the PowerPoint, so you can take a look at these. The point is, it was really important for us to look at these things to make our tier one instruction as impactful as possible.

I'm not saying that high-quality instructional materials aren't important — they're absolutely essential. You need to find the best tools you could possibly have. But it's just step one; it doesn't solve everything. I did a two-year study in Ohio, which I'll talk about a little bit later, and they published sort of how the schools were doing. These are schools where less than a third of the children in third grade are able to read at any acceptable level, and almost all of them have high-quality instructional materials in place. So it's more than just the materials — it's what we do with them, and how we look at them, and how we make any modifications that we need.

My philosophy has always been: implementing flawed programs with fidelity ensures failure. I know that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but my responsibility is never to the materials; it's to my students. That requires us to implement with what our superintendent calls "integrity." What does that really mean? It means that we start with fidelity. You can't make any changes to materials unless you know the materials incredibly well, and how long you stay there — how long it takes you to discover those issues — is certainly up for conversation. But once we start finding things that aren't working, then we make those modifications. We use our student data, we use our teacher expertise, and we start implementing with integrity. And after that, it's just build and refine.

We've created a lot of tools ourselves to help us do that. We have what we call integrity checklists around the routines — just the key steps in a routine, the things that we want to see. Sometimes teachers will leave out a really important part. For example, if we want students to write a word, we make sure the students repeat the word you said, so we know they are actually hearing the word we said and pronouncing it correctly — because some of the errors are around articulation. Making sure all those steps are in place. As soon as we can videotape a teacher who's doing the routine really well and efficiently, we get those videotapes up and shared.

And — this is sort of a make-believe slide, but it's similar to the slides we're using — we also put the routines on our slides. At the beginning of the year, we're doing high-frequency words; we have a read-spell-write routine. It's on the side of the slide to remind the teacher of all those important steps. But it also means that all the people from the district and the administrators from the school who perhaps didn't teach phonics are also learning those steps with the teachers and with the students. It's really helped us accelerate every adult who's visiting those classrooms — their knowledge of these key instructional routines. After four to six weeks, we can remove them when everyone is very comfortable with those routines. We also began creating refinement checklists for our administrators.

Not all of our administrators have taught phonics, like I said, so part of my responsibility is to bring them up to speed on the things that we want them to know and the kinds of conversations we want them to have with the teachers. A lot of them will start out conversations that are very surface: "You followed the lesson well" — which is fine if it's a good lesson, but not so fine if it's a bad lesson. Or "Your students were highly engaged." They were just very surface things. That's not going to move the needle. What's going to move the needle are things connected to the science of instruction and the science of learning.

So we just start. We've generated this list that we keep building and building from. For example, if you go into a classroom and the teacher asks a question, calls on a volunteer, and moves on — that's not really good, because she has no idea if the other students would have answered the same thing, if they have any misunderstandings. So we have on this checklist: that's the time for you to have a conversation about every-pupil response. When do you use choral responses? When do you use every-pupil response? Those kinds of conversations are really important. I'll show you an example in just a sec.

We were encountering a lot of discovery learning in phonics lessons, where the teacher would say, "What do you know about... what do you know about re-?" I'll never forget that day. We walked into the classroom, and the teacher was like, "What do you know about re-?" And the children were just looking at her, and she was just trying to get it out of them — when she could have just said, "Re- is a prefix. It means again." Just very explicit, and then get into the practice of it. If you're seeing discovery learning, we need to have those conversations about explicit instruction: when is it appropriate to ask questions where we're getting some of that information from the students, versus when it's more efficient just to tell them. A lot of this comes out when we look at the pacing of the lessons — a lot of wasted time, a lot of extra verbiage from teachers. When they start seeing that and trimming down, it gets more efficient and explicit. Routine steps are missing — we can share the integrity checklist and the videos. Pacing is off — timers are our best friend at the beginning of the year.

We do a ton with videotaping. Every year we have new teachers. We partner them with a mentor teacher that first week. The mentor teacher, who's familiar with the materials, will teach while the new teacher is watching and taking notes, and works with them to plan their second week. The second week, they teach the materials. I go in and visit the classrooms to take a temperature check and see what support they need. In the third and fourth weeks, their mentor teacher films their lessons every day and gives it to the new teacher; they watch it and replicate it. So they have like a month of intensive support from us. After a month, almost all of our teachers have the pacing down and the routines down, so we can focus our time on refining and just building their capacity. We have a lot of things in place that have helped us accelerate that kind of work.

Here's an example of every-pupil response, what I was talking about. I would go into classrooms, and it was always children raising their hands; one person is called on; the other children are frustrated. I have no idea if the other children have the same understanding. Now, what our teachers do regularly is: if they ask a question where there's one answer — like, "When we see the letters s-h, what sound do we say? Everybody!" — that's a choral response. But if it's something that requires some discussion or talking — maybe they'll talk with a partner, and one volunteer will be called on to answer, and the teacher says "Everybody," and the children have to give a nonverbal response.

"I agree," "I disagree," or "I want to add on." So now I see if some children disagree with an answer that was correct — I have some misconceptions I have to resolve before we move on with the lesson. We're checking at every point, and the children are interacting at every point. They're engaged. They're on the edge of their seats, thinking about everything. There were a lot of questions that came in, and the administrators would say, "Oh, they're so engaged! They're so engaged." But what they were really doing is just repeating, parroting, what the teacher was saying, and they weren't thinking deeply. This requires deep thought and requires some extended conversation if some things arise.

These aren't the only signs we use. We have a few others — like the one for the bathroom, which is one of the most important; then no one disturbs us. We just nod, and things are taken care of as they should be.

This is an evaluation form that I'm happy to share with anyone, that I'm using this year. It has three parts. We're doing a study this year where I'm looking at the different phonics materials being used in our district and really evaluating which are having the biggest impact, so we can address issues that are arising with some of these materials. On the first page, I just write down everything: when they start, what they do, how many words they're reading, how many words they're writing, when they get to the next part — because I'm looking at coverage and pacing. If they give me the lesson plan, I don't need this page; I can just mark on the lesson plan. The second page is really the most important. These are the areas that had been the focus of enhancement over the previous three years. Like I said, I count the number of words read and the number of words written — the intensity of the practice really matters — and if the teacher doesn't have that in place, that's something I can work with him or her on very quickly. Explicit instruction versus discovery. You see all these things that we taught. Where are they using supports and scaffolds? Where should they be but they aren't? Those are areas I can quickly address. And then there are lots of things around decodable text that I've been working with the teachers on for years — about adding more vocabulary and more systematic oral-language development, and syntax and text cohesion, and lots and lots of other things that really enhance that work. This is where I record all of those things. On the last page, I just look at the issues I saw: are they around science-of-reading knowledge? Science-of-learning knowledge? Or science of instruction? A lot of times they're around instruction and learning, because we get the information about the routines and the materials down pretty quickly. This helps me identify specific areas of professional development for groups of teachers or individual teachers, very discreetly, and connect that to the materials they're using.

So what impact is it having? I'm going to share just some examples of the work I've been doing in schools, either with materials the district has provided or materials I've helped to create. I'm sharing with you schools that have a lot of challenges, because I want you to see the reality of what is possible in some very challenging situations. You might be doing better than some of these schools, but this is the truth of where we are and where we're going. For example, here in New York City, at my main school: we looked at what was happening in those first three months — and keep in mind, several years ago only 9% of our students were reading on grade level. We were doing this intensive work those first three months. This was our first-grade composite data: we had 51% of our students above grade level and 20% on.

So we had 71% on or above, which was a massive shift for the school. This really helped our teachers believe in what we were doing. It's really important that they see movement — and see some movement quickly — to really dive into this journey with us. This was just the beginning. We had a long way to go, of course, and we still have a ways to go. We're still not where we want to be, but we've gone from 9% several years ago to, last year, up to 84%. So we are moving the needle, but we're not giving up.

One of the things I will say: the district has asked us to focus on K–2. I refuse. We focus on K–5, because our 3–5 students were drowning. They didn't have structured literacy. They couldn't sound out multisyllabic words. They didn't have the fluency. So we've taken a K–5 perspective, and we've been working with teachers in all those grades, not just limiting it to K–2. I understand why the focus is on K–2 — it's super important — but those 3–5 students need a tremendous amount of support, and those teachers are the least trained in phonics and word study, syllabication, morphology. So that's been a much heavier lift for us, but we're seeing a lot of movement on our state assessments with students in those grade levels. That's been really encouraging.

I do some work with the Catholic schools here in New York City. I'm always nervous about second grade. It's much easier to see quick movement in kindergarten and first grade than it is in second, as you know, because these students have had several years of failure. These were students last year, beginning of the year — you see all the red and the yellow on this particular assessment. By midyear — I was there the day they got this data — we screened, and we eliminated the red, so we knew what we were doing was working, and we had to just stay the course and keep digging in and make sure we were doing everything possible for these students.

The resistance is real; it is intense. And New York City teachers are not shy. I don't know about Texas, but they're not shy. This was a teacher last year at a school in the Bronx — another borough in New York City. I was working with her just on decodable text. She didn't want anything to do with it. This was her data at the beginning of the year: every child was in the red, way below where they should be. Keep in mind, with this teacher, all of her students were learning English as an additional language, so it's not entirely surprising that she had this data at the beginning of the year. Some of them were just learning basic English words and so on. So this was a challenging classroom, and she was not eager to have anything to do with decodable text. By midyear she was doing it, and starting to pick up a little bit — you see her results. She's starting to move about half the class. But something clicked at midyear, because her colleagues were starting to notice things happening that they had never seen before, and this teacher, who was incredibly vocal, decided it was time to dive in the deep end and really see what was going on. I was there the day she got these results as well. This was the end of the year. I screamed. She cried. The administration was crying. Like — we know what to do. We know how to move the needle. But it also requires a lot of work in terms of really showing teachers that what we are doing is not just another thing, that it's really having an impact. I couldn't just tell this teacher, "Well, it's working in the kindergarten classrooms at the school in Queens." She had to see it. She had to live it. And she had to feel it. And now it's just tremendous what she's doing in her classroom.

I talked about that study in Ohio using some materials that I created. This was a two-year study where we were looking at the impact of double-dosing, and I talk a lot about this here in New York City. This was in a very rural area, very high poverty. It was a two-year study, started in 2023, in first grade. At the beginning of the study, 47% of students — almost half — were assessed as requiring intervention or urgent intervention. They were way below, and they were put in this double-dosing situation. By spring, we had it down to 16%, which was phenomenal. When we looked at the students who were on or above in first grade that year, only 11% started on or above. We were able, by spring, to get them up to 68%. Now, that's not where we want to be, but we saw movement, and that was encouraging for us.

Our goal, like I said earlier, was to strengthen the tier one instruction. The students who needed intervention were getting this double-dosing, but the teachers who were teaching the whole group were also being given training on the science of reading and instruction, and all of that.

One of the things we did for our kindergartners, in terms of double-dosing, was go right to what was going to make a difference. We went right to the phoneme. We went right to the alphabet. We got rid of rhyme. We got rid of clapping syllables. We got rid of all these other things. The minute we had a couple of letters, we taught them how to blend those sounds together, and then we would have them segment the sounds and rebuild it. We just took words apart and put them together over and over and over, and created the structure. Even in phonemic awareness — if we were having them segment off the first sound (because you can't start with full segmentation) — just beginning sound. Then we went to beginning and ending, then beginning, ending, and medial. We would say, "What's the first sound? Sad." "What letter do you write when we hear this sound? Hold up that letter card. Now trace the letter with your finger as you say it. Now write the letters." These were the kinds of things we were doing — really making it concrete and intensive. Any child who started kindergarten who knew fewer than seven letter names and sounds, or couldn't segment beginning sounds, got this double-dosing. No one was labeled. It didn't matter why. Some of them just didn't have preschool experiences. Some were learning English as an additional language. Some had other kinds of issues or concerns. It didn't matter why. We wanted to double-dose that first half of the year very intensely, and then we could evaluate at midyear who needed some additional support — for whom did that double-dosing really matter? The kindergarten curriculum is very aggressive; it goes very fast, and it really worries me if we aren't giving our students everything they need.

This year in New York City, we have a 10-to-15-minute double-dosing plan for our kindergartners. Tons of alphabet work — the entire alphabet, we're reviewing it every day — and then oral blending and oral segmentation at the phoneme level. We're just trying to get them caught up to where they need to be. In terms of accelerating the alphabet, we are taking advantage of some research, again by Linnea Ehri and Adina Schmidman, about the embedded mnemonic alphabet. You see here, like, there's an apple and the letter A, and so on. This work was done in preschool — which is why we're using it for the first part of kindergarten. What they found with this embedded mnemonic alphabet — you see it here on the screen — was faster acquisition of letter-sound knowledge; it reduced confusion, had long-term memory benefits, and more easily transferred to reading. So we're doing all of these things to fine-tune what we're doing to help our kindergartners get caught up.

I hate the mantra "reading by third grade" that we hear in the media all the time. We're replacing that mantra with "reading in first grade." We're doing everything humanly possible in kindergarten to get students where they need to be as quickly as they can, and continuing that work in first grade, so that by the time they leave first grade, everyone's reading. That requires a tremendous amount of effort, as you know.

A couple other examples, then I'll get to some other things. Oh gosh — I need to speed up. Louisiana, two years ago: the schools that had the highest scores in the state were using some materials that I created. 90% of their first graders were on or above grade level, whereas the state average was 69%. These were schools doing exactly what I'm talking about: curricular surgery — looking at what's most impactful, trying to move the needle, and being very honest about what they were doing in the classroom, what was and was not working.

I really like this data a lot. These were the third graders. They started at the 53rd percentile. After three years, they made it to the 88th. The reason I like this is that if you start doing what's really going to move the needle, and you stay the course — and sometimes it takes time; I mean, it always takes time. Let's be honest. You're not going to see miracles in a month or two — but they stayed the course, and they just kept at it and added. This cumulative effect of year after year of these children getting this great instruction is starting to pay off, and it's really exciting to see.

So we did this curricular surgery — I've talked a lot about that. Now we had to look at some even bigger things. Like: we have everything in place, but are we getting enough practice? It is shocking to me how little practice students are actually getting during a lot of our phonics instruction. I'm going to share some actual classroom-observation data here in New York City. I've seen this every year for four years now, where I've gone into classrooms in New York City. The phonics lessons most of the teachers use are 40 minutes. Whenever I go to visit a school, they always show me the best teachers and the best classrooms, so I know where we're starting. Here's a second-grade classroom I went to visit — this was in the Bronx last year. I watched 40 minutes, and the students read three words on their own and wrote one word. They repeated a lot of things the teacher did — you know, "I do. You do. My turn, your turn." But they didn't actually have to sound it out and work through it. You might think, "Well, that's extreme." No — this was what I saw regularly, school after school after school.

So I went to the next school in the district — I was doing my temperature check at the beginning of the year — and the first school called the second school and said, "Uh-oh, he's coming. Don't show him a whole lesson, or he'll freak out." So they just showed me two routines: blending and dictation, because those are critical. I just saw 10 minutes of each. In second grade, the blending — you see — the students read four words in 10 minutes, because the teacher was doing all these other things and doing all the work and talking, or just having them repeat what she had done, and the children weren't even looking at the word. And then dictation: she would say some sounds, and they would write the letters — you see two or three of those. When it came to words, it was only one or two, because it was so slowed down, and there was so much talk about the routine — put your counters here and what have you. Then I shared with them — this was week seven — what was happening at my school in kindergarten. Five minutes of blending: you see, we have the children say the sounds for some letters, and then they're reading about 20 words — some new, some review. When it came to dictation — let's compare apples to apples.

Our second graders, in week seven, were writing 13 to 14 words in five minutes. In some classrooms it was a little more — about seven minutes, to be honest. So five to seven minutes. You see the difference in the intensity of the practice. My school started out where the schools in the Bronx were. So really setting goals and getting the routines efficient, and really establishing routines where we could increase the intensity of the practice, made a significant difference. That's why I think people make fun of me when I say I count how many words they read and how many words they wrote and all that. I want to see the intensity of practice. We can't move the needle if children aren't doing more during the phonics lesson. Doing this kind of accountant-type work can really have an impact.

We know that all practice is not equal. We need lots of repetition and high engagement — I've talked about that. Limiting the volunteer and making sure we're doing every-pupil response. We want to make sure the students are generating, not just parroting the teacher. That was a big shift for our teachers. They would have blending lines, and the teacher would sound out every word and just have the children repeat or echo it — and the children, many of them, weren't even looking at the word. The students need to do the heavy lifting. When it comes to blending work, the teacher models two; the children do the rest. The teacher will tap on a word and say, "Whisper." They have an opportunity to sound it out. She taps on it again and says, "All together" — and she hears them and can make corrections if there are any issues. And interleaving that practice — making sure it's not only cumulative but distributed. We keep coming back to it. We keep connecting it to previous learning. We want to make sure we give students the amount of practice and the amount of time all of them need to master those skills. As I always say, it's in the application where the learning sticks. That is the piece that has to be corrected in a lot of classrooms I visit. If we want the phonics instruction to work, we need to pay attention to what the students are actually doing and how much they're actually doing.

Then step three: we need to differentiate the support based on data. I have a whole thing that I do with differentiating phonics instruction during the whole group, and there are tons of things embedded in the routines, like the blending lines. There are new words; there are review words for the students who need practice; there are challenge words for students who need acceleration. All of that is embedded in the routines. What I want to share with you is something different that I did in a district in Connecticut. For the last two years we've been working on small-group time when it comes to phonics instruction. This was a district that was getting decent results, but they were flatlining. They just couldn't bump it up, so the administrators wanted me to focus on what was happening during small-group time. We knew that whatever we came up with had to be pretty easy to implement, because the teachers are incredibly busy, incredibly taxed for time. We needed some kind of simple routine that the teachers could implement without a tremendous amount of prep time and effort.

We started out two years ago with K–2, and then last year with 3–5. I want to share with you what we did for both, because it is a bit different. The teachers had data, because they had given these phonics surveys looking at skills that students were lacking, and they had a software program they were using that gave them data about specific skills. So they had data they could use to organize the children by skill needs.

If there were skills that the students had yet to master — it might be the skill you're working on; it could be previously taught skills for some students; maybe it could be skills further in the scope and sequence for those students who are ready for that acceleration — whatever skills they needed, they got this intensive decodable-text practice during small-group time. It was just three days a week, 15 minutes. That was all it was.

This is the form we use. We'd list the students' names so the teacher could take anecdotal notes. I'm going to share with you the sort of CliffNotes version of what we did. In the 15 minutes, the first five minutes was spent on dictation, and the next 10 minutes the students were reading from the decodable, and the teacher was listening in, providing feedback, taking observational notes. They might end it with a quick write. But almost the entire 15 minutes, the children had a pencil in their hand or a book in their hand and were doing something. That was the point: this kind of practice with a skill they needed.

During the dictation, one of the things we were noticing in the whole group — because it was a wide range of student needs — is that the teacher would have to slow down and do some modeling. Some children needed sound boxes and supports and what have you. Really important, but they weren't getting through enough words. So we wanted to flip the switch during small group and do high-intensity practice. We had this routine they call "slash the trash." It sounds like a New York kind of thing, but it's actually Connecticut. I'll show what it means in just a second. The teacher is now taking a step back, because they've done all the "I do, we do" in whole group. Now it's the "you do" — the students do. The teacher would just say the word, and the students have to do the work, very much like the assessments in Acadience and DIBELS, if you're using those. The teacher would say sat, for example, and what the students would do is put a dot in each box as they said each sound. So the students would go /s/ /a/ /t/, and then they would slash the boxes they weren't using — slash the trash. The teacher would say nothing, because they got it right; the teacher would just tap on their paper or nod. They'd go back and write the spelling for each sound. They got it right. The teacher would say nothing, just tap. And then they would write it in their best handwriting. The teacher would only jump in if a specific child made an error. This way we could get through a lot of words quickly.

We were looking at oral segmentation fluency: how quickly can they segment the sounds? We assess that, but we never really check on it during whole group. Sound-spelling fluency: how quickly do they connect those sounds with spellings? And handwriting fluency: are they quickly and accurately making those letters? We know that's super important. We would do this with a bunch of decodable words, and we'd throw in maybe a high-frequency word the children were struggling with, like said. They would go /s/ /e/ /d/ — slash the trash — nod — they'd go back and write the spelling. We knew some children would make a mistake with the sound spelled a-i, so the teacher would jump in and provide support. Then in their best handwriting. That activity — five minutes of that — we get through a bunch of words, and we can check on all these really critical fluency-related things as well.

Then the children would read for 10 minutes, and the teacher would just sit there and listen in — a few minutes per child — give them some feedback, ask some questions, take some observational notes. Just listening to children read is the best data you can get. I think you would all agree with that.

This gave our teachers the opportunity to do that every week. It was a three-day plan on a decodable text based on a skill they had yet to master. Some students would get the teacher every day, and some would just get a few days, based on where they were and how that schedule worked out. When the children weren't with us, we would have them reread decodables or read other things, but we found out there was no accountability system in place, so some of them weren't doing it. So we started giving them these response frames to fill out — response frames from my spelling books. If they were reading a story, we'd give them a response frame like this: they would fill in the who, the did-what, the where, and the when — so they would write the gist. They had that support, so they knew they had to go in and find the information that told who it was about, what that person did, where it happened, and when it happened. If it was nonfiction, maybe they would use the frame where they're writing details. If it was a text structure — like in second grade, we want to highlight the text structure — we'd give them a frame like that. That would happen one day, so we would have an accountability system. We could talk with them about it. They would draw a picture and add details, that kind of thing.

The next day we would maybe do something more sophisticated, especially as we were moving into the second half of first grade and second grade. You see here this frame: the children are filling in the who, the did-what, the where, the when. "The boy ran to the park yesterday" — let's say that's the sentence the story's about. We'd have them flip to the back and say, "Now I want you to start that sentence with when." So they would write, "Yesterday the boy ran to the park." Oh my gosh — now you wrote like a book! Book-like! So we'd go back and forth with oral book language, because our children really struggle with book language. It just doesn't sound like how they talk, and it's harder to understand. We started giving them this practice, going back and forth. Sometimes we'd have them combine sentences — just lots of things. We had some really simple accountability things we could do with them.

So how did this work for us? One school used DIBELS instead of Acadience — same test, different reports. Some classrooms were able to eliminate the students in the red for the first time, which was exciting. This high-intensity practice, a few times a week — all the classrooms decreased the number of students in the red. What really made us happy is that when we would see students in the red after we started doing this work, it started to make sense: "Oh my gosh, this child is in the red, but this child has an IEP. We have a plan in place. This child is new to us and is just learning English — oh, we have a plan in place; we're going to monitor to see if we can get them." We were able to really focus our attention, because we had removed some of those children who were previously in the red who shouldn't have been there to begin with.

And then we looked at whether it was sticking — this was what was so fascinating to me. At the end of the first year, we looked at our second graders. This was one of the schools: 82% of the students were where they needed to be when we sent them to third grade. We tested at the beginning of third grade, and 81% were still there. So we knew it stuck. This past year, we got it up to 90% leaving second grade, going to third, where they needed to be, because they had two years of this work. I'm really curious about how that's building over the years — how we can build on that.

Part of it was changing the small-group mindset. A lot of our teachers who were doing small group were just doing basically a whole-group lesson — shorter, faster — and it really needed to switch. Small group is about high-intensity practice, and I kept telling the teachers, "I need to see the students sweating, not you. I need them to be doing the work. This is the time — you've done the 'I do, we do' in whole group. This is the 'you do' — for them to do the work." That was a big mindset shift in getting them used to that.

Last year, like I said, we did the same work for 3–5, which was a bit more challenging, as you can imagine. We assessed the students at the beginning of the year — any students who were below the decoding threshold. The decoding threshold: if you're below it, then the things we're doing with comprehension aren't really having the effect. You're not able to access grade-level text. You still have some basic decoding needs with one-syllable words, or your fluency is so low — with some assessments, if you're below 100 words a minute, you're below the decoding threshold. So we had that three-day plan. We taught it to our three, four, and five teachers who had students below the decoding threshold, and we found some decodables that were more appropriate for older students, where they could focus in on sets of skills they were working on. There were some students in that bucket, but there were more students in the "I need fluency and vocabulary support" bucket. We created another simple three-day plan for them, where they were doing repeated readings of grade-level text. Some programs have sort of short reads and things you can use for that, but when teachers didn't have that, we would take an excerpt from the text they were reading — whether it was a novel or a passage or what have you. We would take a portion of the text that was really important but particularly challenging, and we'd do repeated readings. They would monitor words correct per minute, and we did a heavy focus on vocabulary knowledge, and also some explicit fluency instruction around phrasing and things like that. That was really powerful for those students.

My point is: the needs really vary in terms of what that small group can be, in terms of high-intensity practice, and our data really teased out the specific needs for those students. The other students, when they had small group, it was just springboarding off their grade-level content — or students needed to be advanced; they would have book clubs and read novels and things like that, and they would have conversations around those as well.

What's really interesting to me, when we talk about the science of reading or the science of literacy: we have these models of reading that you're all familiar with, like the Reading Rope and the Simple View of Reading. More recently, Nell Duke and Kelly Cartwright created their Active View of Reading. I know it isn't as commonly known, but they took those big buckets in the Simple View of Reading — word recognition and language comprehension — and they looked at the things that overlap, and they looked at other things, like executive functioning, that have an impact. When we look at the things that overlap — I don't know if you can see; it's a little small for me — reading fluency, vocabulary, morphology, and being flexible in using our decoding skills. These are all things we have discovered our 3–5 students need a lot more support with. So phonics doesn't end in K–2; it graduates into word study — combining phonics and vocabulary. Morphology helps with the spelling. There's a lot of meat there that our students still need help with, and we've been working hard to provide that meat for them. And we've been doing a ton of work — and I don't have time to go through it, because we only have five minutes left.

But I have a lot of slides, and I want to just share with you what the slides are so that you can explore on your own. I've been doing a lot of work around enhancing the work with decodable text. Yes, we use decodable text to apply our phonics; we reread them to build fluency. But all the things on the bottom of the slide — I've taught our teachers how to use them to build vocabulary and oral language systematically, how to develop early reading behaviors around comprehension, how to springboard off to writing and spelling work, and how to do work around syntax and text cohesion. In the slides, you're going to see some slides around text cohesion — connecting ideas. You're going to see some slides that talk about the work we do with syntax — not only in the lower grades, but how we advance it to the upper grades: how we'll pull out really complex sentences and divide them and ask questions — which part tells us when, which tells us what, which tells us where? Let's move pieces around so it sounds like how we talk, so we can understand it. There are examples on the slides of how we do this, and I'm happy to follow up with anyone who wants that. And then how we use that work to connect to writing.

In grade one, we only have a few minutes to do a quick write. We will give them a frame: "The girl went..." and they have to fill in the where, the when, and the why with information from the story. No first grader is going to give me a sentence that complex, but when I give them a frame, it's easy for them, because they know the pieces of information they have to find. So now, when they write on their own and they're just giving me the who-did-what, I'm like, "Erase the period. I need to know where. I need to know why. You haven't given me your whole set." You can do this kind of work and really elevate their writing. Decodable texts are really easy in terms of doing this work, because they're simple stories, and you can do these quick writes that don't take a lot of time but can really develop sentence comprehension. Even chunking it into these parts helps with fluency — how they chunk sentences into phrases, all of that.

We started in kindergarten, and I have some slides that talk about the different levels of support that we do. I'll show you the second level. We start out with just giving them the gist: "The ___ got stuck," and they have to choose a word and fill it in the sentence, and they write the sentence in their best handwriting. But they have to draw a picture that shows where and why the bus got stuck in the story — they're not able to write that yet. Why do we do that, giving them a very specific thing to put in their illustration? Because when we're circulating and talking to them, I can have them read their sentence — "The bus got stuck" — and say, "Where? Show me in your picture." They'll say, "In the mud." I say, "Let's put that whole sentence together: The bus got stuck in the mud." So I'm systematically building oral language before they're able to use that in writing. There are slides around that.

And then there are some examples of how we teach our second graders to write constructed responses using decodables. That was a big challenge. Our third-grade teachers were, when I first started, like, "They can't write constructed responses — help the second-grade teachers!" So we did it with decodables. We didn't have a whole lot of time, so we would just do, like, the first day write the gist; the second day we'd add details, and so on. You'll see some examples of that work.

The other thing I want to share with you is some work with encoding. I'm just going to flip through this, because we've already talked about it. I want to show you the one slide.

In grades two and up, we started doing dictation chains, just like you do word chains. We started doing dictation chains because spelling was all over the place; students were struggling with spelling grade-level words. In this particular chain, for second grade, we want children to write words like retaking and mistaking. But we have kids who aren't there yet, and that would overwhelm them. So we back-map to the easiest skill. We have them write take, which we put on the board. Have them check and correct. Underneath that, they write taking. If they don't drop the e, we very quickly say, "Don't forget to drop the e before the -ing." Check and correct. Underneath that, they get to the grade-level word, which is retaking. They just have to focus on the prefix. And under that, it's mistaking. They just have to focus on changing the prefix, and they're rewriting taking, so it's reinforcing that skill they might have struggled with, which is the spelling change.

Here's an example of a fifth-grade one where we built to a science word, echolocation, which is super hard: local, locate, location, relocation, echolocation. We decide what we're going to say — what's the teaching point? With local, locate, we did a quick vocabulary: what does locate mean? Location — it was all about, what's the base word? Locate. What's the /s/ sound you hear? What letter do we write? T. So are you going to use t-i-o-n or s-i-o-n? Those kinds of conversations.

Oh gosh, I'm out of time, so I'm just going to flip through. This is the routine we use, focusing on fluency. Let me get to the very end — you'll see some of the forms we use.

Change is hard? Yes, it is. So we had to flip the switch: we're not going to focus on teachers and programs; we're going to focus on our students. Then elevate our programs by fixing anything that needs support, and elevate the work of our teachers by really giving them the tools they need and the professional development we always need. Of course, we need to return to our purpose, and this is our purpose. It's all about them, and the work that we do.

I want to thank you for joining me today. I'm completely out of time. I always say, giving the gift of reading is one of the greatest gifts we can give children, because it's a gift once given can never be taken away, but will forever transform a child's life. I want to thank all of you for the hard work you're doing to give the gift of reading to all of the students you work with, and thank you for joining me today. I'll stop sharing and turn it back over to the team.

Tonja Gray: Thank you, Dr. Blevins. There was so much meat in your presentation, and we're still all chewing, so we appreciate you, and we cannot wait to hear from you again. Thank you so much for everything that you did. And I definitely want to thank our sponsors for helping us to bring Dr. Blevins to us today.

I'm going to share really quickly. We are almost done with our day. I have one last thing for us to take care of, so I'm going to share that screen with you guys, and we're going to do our last little bit of information. First of all, I've got to thank our sponsors — Amplify, Curriculum Associates, and Newsela, who sponsored all of our sessions today — and Benchmark for sponsoring Dr. Blevins today.

We did not have anyone put their name in the hat for president-elect. I was joking with the team earlier: I guess you're stuck with me until we can find somebody else. But I'm loving what I'm doing for you guys. This is an honor and a pleasure to serve you as your president this year. Dr. Shona Rose has put her name in the hat for secretary, and since we only had one name, we can invite her to become our secretary by acclamation. If everybody wants to cheer, we can celebrate and accept her by acclamation.

And then Jackie Root from Region Six and Ashley Certevell from Region Four have asked to put their names in the hat as regional reps. We will bring their names up at our next executive board meeting and vote to put them in as regional reps, and we will get information out to you.

Our officers will look like this going forward: Past President Tony Perez; President Tonja Gray; President-Elect is still open; Treasurer Latanya Robinson; Secretary Shona Rose; Webmaster Jennifer Ackerman; Social Media, Shona Rose; and Strategic Partnerships, Karen Sharp. And we absolutely could not do this without Venture — they absolutely are amazing. Jen and Amy have been so instrumental in helping us to get this conference put together, and I could not do this without them.

One last thing for you guys, and then I'm gonna let you go: this is a reminder that we have our winter conference, "All Aboard the Change Express: Leading at a Time of Change