See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265739450

Every Child, Every Day

Article in Educational leadership: journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A · March 2012

CITATIONS READS

54 29,332

2 authors:

Richard Allington Rachael Gabriel

Retired from the University of Tennessee University of Connecticut
140 PUBLICATIONS 5,115 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 512 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachael Gabriel on 12 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The six elements of effective reading instruction don’t require
much time or money—just educators’ decision to put them in place.

Every Child,
Every Day
Richard L. Allington Six Elements for Every Child
and Rachael E. Gabriel Here, we outline six elements of instruction that
every child should experience every day. Each of

E
these elements can be implemented in any district
very child a reader” has been the goal and any school, with any curriculum or set of mate-
of instruction, education research, and rials, and without additional funds. All that’s nec-
reform for at least three decades. We essary is for adults to make the decision to do it.
now know more than ever about how to
accomplish this goal. Yet few students in 1. Every child reads something he or she chooses.
the United States regularly receive the best reading The research base on student-selected reading
instruction we know how to give. is robust and conclusive: Students read more,
Instead, despite good intentions, educators often understand more, and are more likely to continue
make decisions about instruction that compromise reading when they have the opportunity to choose
or supplant the kind of experiences all children what they read. In a 2004 meta-analysis, Guthrie
need to become engaged, successful readers. This is and Humenick found that the two most powerful
especially true for struggling readers, who are much instructional design factors for improving reading
less likely than their peers to participate in the kinds motivation and comprehension were (1) student
of high-quality instructional activities that would access to many books and (2) personal choice of
ensure that they learn to read. what to read.

10 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP / MARCH 2012

Allington.indd 10 2/6/12 1:41 PM

 We’re not saying that students should never read
teacher- or district-selected texts. But at some time
every day, they should be able to choose what they
read.
The experience of choosing in itself boosts moti-
vation. In addition, offering choice makes it more
likely that every reader will be matched to a text
that he or she can read well. If students initially
have trouble choosing texts that match their ability
level and interest, teachers can provide limited
choices to guide them toward successful reading
experiences. By giving students these opportunities,
we help them develop the ability to choose appro-
priate texts for themselves—a skill that dramati-
cally increases the likelihood they will read outside
school (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001, Reis et al., 2007).
Some teachers say they find it difficult to provide
a wide selection of texts because of budget con-
straints. Strangely, there is always money available
© TIM PANNELL/CORBIS

ASCD / WWW.ASCD.ORG 11

Allington.indd 11 2/7/12 8:02 AM

 for workbooks, photocopying, and com-
puters; yet many schools claim that they
have no budget for large, multileveled
classroom libraries. This is interesting
because research has demonstrated that
access to self-selected texts improves
students’ reading performance (Krashen,
2011), whereas no evidence indicates
that workbooks, photocopies, or com-
puter tutorial programs have ever done
so (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998;
Dynarski, 2007).
There is, in fact, no way they ever
could. When we consider that the
typical 4th grade classroom has students
reading anywhere from the 2nd to the
9th grade reading levels (and that later
grades have an even wider range), the
idea that one workbook or textbook
could meet the needs of every reader is
absurd (Hargis, 2006). So, too, is the
idea that skills developed through iso-
lated, worksheet-based skills practice
and fill-in-the-blank vocabulary quizzes
will transfer to real reading in the
absence of any evidence that they ever
have. If school principals eliminated supported by studies for the last 70 they read. They are likely to become
the budget for workbooks and work- years, policies that simply increase the frustrated when reading these difficult
sheets and instead spent the money on amount of time allocated for students to texts and therefore to lose confidence in
real books for classroom libraries, this read often find mixed results (National their word-attack, decoding, or word-
decision could dramatical­ly improve Reading Panel, 2000). The reason is recognition skills. Thus, a struggling
students’ opportunities to become better simple: It’s not just the time spent with reader and a successful reader who
readers. a book in hand, but rather the intensity engage in the same 15-minute inde-
and volume of high-success reading, pendent reading session do not neces-
2. Every child reads accurately. that determines a student’s progress in sarily receive equivalent practice, and
Good readers read with accuracy learning to read (Allington, 2009; Kuhn they are likely to experience different
almost all the time. The last 60 years of et al., 2006). outcomes.
research on optimal text difficulty—a When students read accurately, Sadly, struggling readers typical­ly
body of research that began with Betts they solidify their word-recognition, encounter a steady diet of too-­
(1949)—consistently demonstrates decoding, and word-analysis skills. challenging texts throughout the school
the importance of having students Perhaps more important, they are likely day as they make their way through
read texts they can read accurately and to understand what they read—and, as classes that present grade-level material
understand. In fact, research shows a result, to enjoy reading. hour after hour. In essence, traditional
that reading at 98 percent or higher In contrast, struggling students who instructional practices widen the gap
accuracy is essential for reading accel- spend the same amount of time reading between readers.
eration. Anything less slows the rate texts that they can’t read accurately are
of improvement, and anything below at a disadvantage in several important 3. Every child reads something
90 percent accuracy doesn’t improve ways. First, they read less text; it’s slow he or she understands.
reading ability at all (Allington, 2012; going when you encounter many words Understanding what you’ve read is the
Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, & Gross, 2007). you don’t recognize instantly. Second, goal of reading. But too often, struggling
Although the idea that students read struggling readers are less likely to readers get interventions that focus on
better when they read more has been understand (and therefore enjoy) what basic skills in isolation, rather than on

12 Educational Leadership / March 2012

Allington.indd 12 2/6/12 1:42 PM

 reading connected text for from studies of reading interven- the opportunity to compose something
meaning. This common tions. Regardless of their focus, target longer than a few sentences are either
misuse of intervention population, or publisher, interventions responding to a teacher-selected prompt
time often arises from a that accelerate reading development or writing within a strict structural
grave mis­interpretation routine­ly devote at least two-thirds of formula that turns even paragraphs and
of what we know about their time to reading and rereading essays into fill-in-the-blank exercises.
reading difficulties. rather than isolated or contrived skill As adults, we rarely if ever write to
The findings of neuro- practice (Allington, 2011). These a prompt, and we almost never write
logical research are some- findings have been consistent for the about something we don’t know about.
times used to reinforce the last 50 years—yet the typical reading Writing is called composition for a good
notion that some students intervention used in schools today has reason: We actually compose (construct
who struggle to learn to struggling readers spending the bulk of something unique) when we write. The
read are simply “wired dif- their time on tasks other than reading opportunity to compose continuous text
ferently” (Zambo, 2003) and rereading actual texts. about something meaningful is not just
and thus require large
amounts of isolated basic
skills practice. In fact, this
same research shows that Students read more, understand more, and are
remediation that empha-
sizes comprehension can more likely to continue reading when they have
change the structure of
© Monalyn Gracia/Corbis

struggling students’ brains. the opportunity to choose what they read.

Keller and Just (2009)
used imaging to examine
the brains of struggling
readers before and after Studies of exemplary elementary something nice to have when there’s
they received 100 hours of reme- teachers further support the finding free time after a test or at the end of the
diation—including lots of reading and that more authentic reading develops school year. Writing provides a different
rereading of real texts. The white matter better readers (Allington, 2002; Taylor, modality within which to practice the
of the struggling readers was of lower Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003). skills and strategies of reading for an
structural quality than that of good In these large-scale national studies, authentic purpose.
readers before the intervention, but it researchers found that students in more- When students write about some-
improved following the intervention. effective teachers’ classrooms spent a thing they care about, they use conven-
And these changes in the structure of larger percentage of reading instruc- tions of spelling and grammar because
the brain’s white matter consistently tional time actually reading; students it matters to them that their ideas are
predicted increases in reading ability. in less-effective teachers’ classrooms communicated, not because they will
Numerous other studies (Aylward spent more time using worksheets, lose points or see red ink if they don’t
et al., 2003; Krafnick, Flowers, Napo- answering low-level, literal questions, (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2010).
liello, & Eden, 2011; Shaywitz et al., or complet­ing before-and-after reading They have to think about what words
2004) have supported Keller and Just’s activities. In addition, exemplary will best convey their ideas to their
findings that comprehensive reading teachers were more likely to differentiate readers. They have to encode these
instruction is associated with changed instruction so that all readers had books words using letter patterns others will
activation patterns that mirror those they could actually read accurate­ly, recognize. They have to make sure they
of typical readers. These studies show fluent­ly, and with understanding. use punctuation in a way that will help
that it doesn’t take neurosurgery or their readers understand which words
banging away at basic skills to enable 4. Every child writes about something go together, where a thought starts and
the brain to develop the ability to read: personally meaningful. ends, and what emotion goes with it.
It takes lots of reading and rereading In our observations in schools across They have to think about what they
of text that students find engaging and several states, we rarely see students know about the structure of similar
comprehensible. writing anything more than fill-in-the- texts to set up their page and organize
The findings from brain research blank or short-answer responses during their ideas. This process is especially
align well with what we’ve learned their reading block. Those who do have important for struggling readers because

ASCD / w w w . ascd . o r g 13

Allington.indd 13 2/6/12 1:43 PM

 it produces a comprehensible text This was often because they were doing and comprehension skills (Trelease,
that the student can read, reread, and extra basic-skills practice instead. In 2001), as well as expanding their vocab-
analyze. class discussions, struggling readers ulary, background knowledge, sense
were more likely to be asked literal of story, awareness of genre and text
5. Every child talks with peers about questions about what they had read, structure, and comprehension of the
reading and writing. to prove they “got it,” rather than to be texts read (Wu & Samuels, 2004).
Research has demonstrated that con- engaged in a conversation about the Yet few teachers above 1st grade
versation with peers improves compre- text. read aloud to their students every day
(Jacobs, Morrison, & Swinyard, 2000).
This high-impact, low-input strategy
is another underused component of
the kind of instruction that supports
readers. We categorize it as low-input
because, once again, it does not require
special materials or training; it simply
requires a decision to use class time
more effectively. Rather than conducting
whole-class reading of a single text that
fits few readers, teachers should choose
to spend a few minutes a day reading to
their students.

Things That Really Matter

Most of the classroom instruction
we have observed lacks these six
research-based elements. Yet it’s not
© SUSIE FITZHUGH

difficult to find the time and resources

to implement them. Here are a few
suggestions.
First, eliminate almost all worksheets
hension and engagement with texts in a Time for students to talk about their and workbooks. Use the money saved to
variety of settings (Cazden, 1988). Such reading and writing is perhaps one purchase books for classroom libraries;
literary conversation does not focus of the most underused, yet easy-to- use the time saved for self-selected
on recalling or retelling what students implement, elements of instruction. It reading, self-selected writing, literary
read. Rather, it asks students to analyze, doesn’t require any special materials, conversations, and read-alouds.
comment, and compare—in short, to special training, or even large amounts Second, ban test-preparation activities
think about what they’ve read. Fall, of time. Yet it provides measurable ben- and materials from the school day.
Webb, and Chudowsky (2000) found efits in comprehension, motivation, and Although sales of test preparation
better outcomes when kids simply even language competence. The task of materials provide almost two-thirds of
talked with a peer about what they read switching between writing, speaking, the profit that testing companies earn
than when they spent the same amount reading, and listening helps students (Glovin & Evans, 2006), there are no
of class time highlighting important make connections between, and thus studies demonstrating that engaging stu-
information after reading. solidify, the skills they use in each. This dents in test prep ever improved their
­Similarly, Nystrand (2006) reviewed makes peer conversation especially reading proficiency—or even their test
the research on engaging students in lit- important for English language learners, performance (Guthrie, 2002). As with
erate conversations and noted that even another population that we rarely ask to eliminating workbook completion, elim-
small amounts of such conversation (10 talk about what they read. inating test preparation provides time
minutes a day) improved standardized and money to spend on the things that
test scores, regardless of students’ family 6. Every child listens to a fluent really matter in develop­ing readers.
background or reading level. Yet strug- adult read aloud. It’s time for the elements of effective
gling readers were the least likely to Listening to an adult model fluent instruction described here to be offered
discuss daily what they read with peers. reading increases students’ own fluency more consistently to every child, in

14 Educational Leadership / March 2012

Allington.indd 14 2/10/12 8:54 AM

 Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P., Morris,
every school, every day. Remember, First, eliminate R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, D., Meis-
adults have the power to make these inger, B., et al. (2006). Teaching children
decisions; kids don’t. Let’s decide to almost all worksheets to become fluent and automatic readers.
give them the kind of instruction they Journal of Literacy Research, 38(4),
need. EL and workbooks. 357–388.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based
References assessment of the scientific research literature
Allington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned on reading and its implications for reading
about effective reading instruction from a instruction. Rockville, MD: National
decade of studying exemplary elementary Gross, A. (2007). Reading Rescue: An Institutes of Child Health and Human
classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, effective tutoring intervention model for Development. Retrieved from www​
83(10), 740–747. language minority students who are strug- .nationalreadingpanel​.org/publications
Allington, R. L. (2009). If they don’t read gling readers in first grade. American Edu- /summary.htm
much . . . 30 years later. In E. H. Hiebert cational Research Journal, 44(2), 414–448. Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of
(Ed.), Reading more, reading better Fall, R., Webb, N. M., & Chudowsky, N. classroom discourse as it affects reading
(pp. 30–54). New York: Guilford. (2000). Group discussion and large-scale comprehension. Research in the Teaching of
Allington, R. L. (2011). Research on reading/ language arts assessment: Effects on stu- English, 40, 392–412.
learning disability interventions. In S. J. dents’ comprehension. American Educa- Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Coyne, M.
Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What tional Research Journal, 37(4), 911–941. ­Schreiber, F. J., Eckert, R. D., & Gubbins,
research has to say about reading instruction Glovin, D., & Evans, D. (2006, December). E. J. (2007). Using planned enrichment
(4th ed., pp. 236–265). Newark, DE: How test companies fail your kids. strategies with direct instruction to
International Reading Association. Bloomberg Markets, 127–138. Retrieved improve reading fluency, comprehension,
Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters from http://timeoutfromtesting​.org/ and attitude toward reading: An evidence-
for struggling readers: Designing research- bloomberg_education.pdf based study. Elementary School Journal,
based programs (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn Guthrie, J. T. (2002). Preparing students 108(1), 3–24.
and Bacon. for high-stakes test taking in reading. In Shaywitz, B., Shaywitz, S., Blachman, B.,
Aylward, E. H., Richards, T. L., Berninger, A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What Pugh, K., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P.,
V. W., Nagy, W. E., Field, K. M., research has to say about reading instruction et al. (2004). Development of left occipto­
Grimme, A. C., Richards, A. L., Thomson, (pp. 370–391). Newark, DE: Inter­national temporal systems for skilled reading
J. B., & Cramer, S. C. (2003). Instruc- Reading Association. in children after phonologically based
tional treatment associated with changes Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55(9),
in brain activation in children with dys- Motivating students to read: Evidence for 926–933.
lexia. Neurology, 61(2), E5–6. classroom practices that increase moti- Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S.,
Betts, E. A. (1949). Adjusting instruction to vation and achievement. In P. McCardle & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading
individual needs. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence growth in high-poverty classrooms:
The forty-eighth yearbook of the National in reading research (pp. 329–354). Bal- The influence of teacher practices that
Society for the Study of Education: Part II, timore: Paul Brookes. encourage cognitive engagement in lit-
Reading in the elementary school (pp. 266– Hargis, C. (2006). Setting standards: An eracy learning. Elementary School Journal,
283). Chicago: University of Chicago exercise in futility? Phi Delta Kappan, 104, 3–28.
Press. 87(5), 393–395. Trelease, J. (2001). Read-aloud handbook (5th
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). Just plain ed.). New York: Viking-Penguin.
The language of teaching and learning. reading: A survey of what makes students Wu, Y., & Samuels, S. J. (2004, May). How
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. want to read in middle schools. Reading the amount of time spent on independent
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377. reading affects reading achievement. Paper
(1998). The impact of print exposure Jacobs, J. S., Morrison, T. G., & Swinyard, presented at the annual convention of the
on word recognition. In J. Metsala & L. W. R. (2000). Reading aloud to students: International Reading Association, Reno,
Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning A national probability study of classroom Nevada.
literacy (pp. 235–262). Mahwah, NJ: reading practices of elementary school Zambo, D. (2003). The importance of pro-
Erlbaum. teachers. Reading Psychology, 21(3), viding scientific information to children
Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, 171–193. with dyslexia. Dyslexia [online magazine].
J. W. (2010). What really matters in Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2009). Altering Retrieved from Dyslexia Parents Resource
writing: Research-based practices across the cortical activity: Remediation-induced at www.dyslexia-parent.com/mag47.html
elementary curriculum. Boston: Allyn and changes in the white matter of poor
Bacon. readers. Neuron, 64(5), 624–631.
Dynarski, M. (2007). Effectiveness of reading Krafnick, A. J., Flowers, D. L., Napoliello,
and mathematics software products: Findings E. M., & Eden, G. F. (2011). Gray matter Richard L. Allington is a professor at
from the first student cohort. Washington, volume changes following reading inter- the University of Tennessee in Knoxville;
DC: Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. vention in dyslexic children. Neuroimage, [email protected]. Rachael E.
Department of Education. Retrieved from 57(3), 733–741. Gabriel is assistant professor at the Uni-
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005 Krashen, S. (2011). Free voluntary reading. versity of Connecticut in Storrs; rachael​
Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. [email protected].

ASCD / w w w . ascd . o r g 15

Allington.indd 15 2/6/12 1:43 PM

Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats