We need to think twice about reading in secondary schools – Part 1: improving practice with theory

Reading is important. By the time they are 15, 25% of students have a reading age of 12 or lower. Whilst girls, on average, have higher reading ability levels than boys at primary school, this gap increases further at secondary school. Boys eligible for free school meals are likely to have even lower reading ability levels than their non-disadvantaged peers. Moreover, there are moderate, statistically significant correlations between reading ability and achievement in GCSE English language, geography, maths, history, double science, English literature, drama, citizenship and German (GL Assessment, 2020). All of these GCSEs count towards school Progress 8 scores and the evidence suggests that an effective, whole-school approach to reading could benefit outcomes in all of these. Reading was explored in some secondary school Ofsted monitoring visits in Spring 2021 (Schools Week, 2021). It is also explicitly mentioned in the Education Inspection Framework as part of ‘quality of education’ (Ofsted, 2019) and was noted in a number of secondary school inspection reports after the new framework launched (Middlehurst, 2019). If you weren’t already convinced, then I hope that you can now see the importance of reading for secondary schools. That's without summarising all the other intrinsic benefits of reading!

I recently visited a secondary school where around 40% of students are reading at a level that is below age-related expectations. It can be difficult for school leaders to unpack these issues with reading. Some delegate responsibility to the English faculty. On the one hand, English teachers are more likely to have the subject-specific ‘know how’ required to analyse relevant data and put together an action plan. On the other, the English faculty are likely to be very busy teaching a jam-packed KS3 curriculum, two GCSE qualifications, and potentially A-levels or alternative entry level and functional skills qualifications too. There is another issue with this approach. If we position reading as the responsibility of the English faculty alone, then we undermine its significance as a whole-school issue and a whole-school area for development.

In this series of blog posts, I will give an overview of some key theories, analyse some typical approaches to developing reading in secondary schools in light of these, and then signpost some potential ways forward for school leaders who are facing similar issues. Here, I begin with some different ways of conceptualizing the key elements of reading and use my favourite model to unpack one approach to Accelerated Reader that has been used in some schools.

Conceptualising reading: from houses to ropes

Recently, I noticed some gentle Twitter jokes focused on the EEF’s (2021) use of a diagram to represent different reading comprehension processes in the ‘Improving literacy in KS2’ guidance report. The diagram itself – depicting the factors involved in effective reading as rooms in a house – is from a paper by Hogan et al., (2011), who contrasted lower-order dimensions of reading (like knowledge of vocabulary and grammar) with:

“higher level language skills - inferencing, comprehension monitoring, and text structure knowledge – [which] are critical to good reading comprehension and its development” (Hogan et al., 2011, p. 16).

(Image from EEF, 2021)

The diagram effectively demonstrates this – emphasising that those ‘rooms’ at the bottom of the house serve as foundations for the subsequent levels. So far, so straightforward. There are, however, some problems with the ‘simple view of reading’ on which this is based. Introduced by Gough and Tunmer (1986), the ‘simple view of reading’ (SVR) proposed that:

“Reading equals the product of decoding and [language] comprehension” (Gough and Tunmer, 1986, p. 7).

This supported a straightforward perspective on struggling readers, who could be categorised within three different groups. First, there were those who struggled to decode. Second, those who struggled to comprehend. Finally, there were those children and young people who struggled with both.

Arguably, the SVR helped teachers to consider some of the key processes involved in understanding and teaching reading. However, in an article that celebrates the contribution of SVR to the teaching of reading, Catts (2021) also highlights how it may have contributed to the false impression that:

“comprehension, both language comprehension and RC, is unidimensional and not nearly as complex as it really is. By displaying comprehension alongside decoding in a comparable fashion, we have often been led to think that comprehension, like decoding, is a “single thing”…In reality, comprehension is a multidimensional cognitive activity and one of the most complex behaviors that we engage in on a regular basis” (Catts, 2018, p. 320).

So, we can move from neatly organised house diagrams to Scarborough’s (2003) reading rope. I have always loved the metaphors that emerge from this. The idea of reading as a ‘tangle’ of interconnected ‘strands’ - which can be problematic for a reader in isolation or in combination with one another - resonates with my own experiences of supporting struggling readers and developing whole-school approaches to reading. Sometimes, you think you’ve found the right ‘thread’, only to ‘pull it’ and find yourself ‘tangled up’ right back where you started.

(Image from Scarborough, 2003)

However, we can argue that the ‘reading rope’ still isn’t enough. Whilst it captures key processes involved in language comprehension and word recognition, it doesn’t necessarily allow us to consider children as readers in the world.

The three domains model

The University of Strathclyde’s three domains model (Ellis, 2017) brings further nuance to our house and rope diagrams, emphasising that “becoming literate is a process that is both social and cognitive” (Ellis, 2017, p. 125). Crucially, the model is important in:

“acknowledging the importance of cognitive skills and knowledge for reading but placing alongside this, evidence of students' social and cultural capitals in relation to literacy and their identities as literate beings and literacy learners” (Ellis and Rowe, 2020, p. 421).

(Image from Ellis and Rowe, 2020)

The first – the cultural and social capital domain - focuses on:

“the child’s cultural capital for, and their socio-cultural understanding of, literacy. This includes the child’s funds of knowledge from outside school, the frequency and nature of the literacy experiences they have, and with which important people in their family and the wider community” (Ellis, 2017, p. 125).

The second – the literate and learner identity domain - explores:

“the child’s identity as a learner in general, as a literate being and as a literacy learner. They must consider the sorts of things the child would like to be able to read, how the child sees himself/herself as a reader, how they would like to be seen by others and how others do see them” (Ellis, 2017, p. 126).

Finally, the third, or cognitive domain:

“concerns the child’s cognitive skills and knowledge about reading. This involves their concepts about print, their phonological awareness, phonic and letter knowledge, their sight vocabulary, comprehension, the cues and strategies they use for working out unknown words when they encounter them in continuous text, as well as their reading behaviours, stamina and persistence” (Ellis, 2017, p. 126).

Within the three domains model, the SVR and the reading rope can be seen as part of this ‘cognitive’ domain. It is the cultural/social and identity domains that can help us to consider why some of the approaches that schools implement don’t necessarily have the desired impact.

I was talking to a friend and fellow English specialist recently about a secondary school’s current approach to developing reading – it involves ‘reading detentions’ being given to those students who do not achieve highly enough on their Accelerated Reader (AR) quizzes. Whilst I can completely empathise with the challenge that the school is facing – according to their reading test data, many of their children are not reading successfully enough to be able to access GCSE examination questions or key curriculum resources despite the investment in AR – it is worth considering this approach from the perspective of the three domains model. Allow me the opportunity to ‘imagine’ some potential impacts from this perspective.

Externally regulated reading: the reading detention

Cognitive:

The use of reading detentions implies that the underlying issue behind a student’s weaker reading is lack of practice. The reading detention is the ‘treatment’ for the underlying condition (lack of reading practice). This does not acknowledge the complexity of reading that we have already seen within the ‘reading rope’ model, or even the SVR model. If a student has key issues with background knowledge or phonological awareness, these are not necessarily going to be resolved by the additional reading. In fact, if the student has developed their own ‘workarounds’ to ‘mask’ reading difficulties, it may well be that enforced practice reinforces their misconceptions or masking strategies. At the very least, the enforced practice would not resolve the student’s cognitive issues with reading.

Social/cultural:

AR recommends books based on student reading levels (calculated through built-in assessments). Whilst the implications of this vary depending on how a school organises their use of AR, it can lead to students being pushed towards a narrow range of texts that may or may not link to their own interests and sociocultural backgrounds. This could, in turn, present reading as an ‘alien’ activity with little relevance to a student’s own social communities or the cultural capitals they have acquired. This ‘reading alienation’ could be further reinforced by the reading detention, which arguably positions reading as a punishment. Instead, schools could make use of “conversations, activities and texts that validate students from families who engage in a different slice of life” (Ellis and Rowe, 2020, p. 423), working to develop intrinsic motivation for reading rather than extrinsic motivation (see my bitesize blog for a quick explanation of the differences here: https://www.brittanywright.co.uk/post/bitesize-blog-motivating-teachers-for-effective-professional-development). To be clear, I’m not suggesting that children and young people should only read books that relate to their sociocultural backgrounds. However, it’s important to consider whether they ever get to explore anything of relevance to their own lives in printed texts. It’s all about the ‘big picture’ with this one.

Literate/learner identity:

By enforcing the reading detention on those who have not achieved a sufficient score on an Accelerated Reader quiz, the student may well begin associating their own struggles with reading with poor behaviour. When I asked my friend about this, they explained that there were a number of students who did read their Accelerated Reader texts on a regular basis, but were still struggling with comprehension and therefore underperforming in the quizzes at the end. For a student like this, the feelings of injustice must be tricky to manage. Having read the texts as instructed (in order to further develop reading skills), the student’s underlying difficulties have not been addressed, but have instead led to them being punished as if they had not done as they were told. It is obvious how this could quickly become a vicious cycle, with the student’s underlying issues remaining unseen and unaddressed, their quiz results remaining disappointing, and their presence at the reading detentions (where they receive the same inappropriate ‘treatment’ again) becoming part of their day-to-day experience of school.

What could this school do differently?

The three domains model illuminates some of the potential problems with externally regulating reading through this extrinsic ‘rewards and sanctions’ approach, using AR. The potential problem is not necessarily the tool itself – Accelerated Reader – but the way that the tool is being used. If the school’s approach was successful, with children’s reading levels improving, then there wouldn’t be a problem. But it’s not working. That’s why my friend and I were discussing it in the first place! Using the three domains model, what could the school do differently?

· Rather than punishing children for underperformance, they could focus solely on rewarding reading – this is difficult to achieve, as it is so challenging to assess/prove how much time a reader actually spends reading. However, if the school is deeply committed to external regulation then at least this approach would reward effort and time spent reading, although it too would have its flaws. Rewards needs to be meaningful to the students. I visited a primary school recently where a book vending machine had been placed on stage in the hall. If they read at home every day, children receive a golden coin and can choose a book from the vending machine. In this way, the school rewards reading with reading, emphasising that it is an intrinsically enjoyable practice and creating a positive reading culture. This approach has doubled the number of ‘regular readers’ in the school in just one half-term.

· Expand the range of texts that struggling readers are exposed to, recognising that Accelerated Reader is just one tool in the school’s toolbox. At North Shore Academy – rated outstanding by Ofsted in July 2021 – “teachers provide stimulating articles about local and global issues, which pupils enjoy reading. These articles enable pupils to understand the world around them…A strong culture of reading is helping leaders to ensure that all pupils do very well at this school” (Ofsted, 2021, p. 2). This example of outstanding practice reflects the importance of the sociocultural and identity domains of the three domains model. Reading bridges the gap between the student, their communities, and the wider world.

Closing thoughts

I want to emphasise that I am not criticising any school for their approach to reading. Instead, I’m trying to bring a nuanced perspective to our school practices, drawing on one of the models that I find most exciting and which – at least as far as my own work in school suggests – could be fruitful for other school leadership teams to explore. In the blog posts that follow this, I’ll share some of my own strategies for developing reading which you’re welcome to critique too!

Further reading:

I was lucky enough to hear Sue Ellis talk about this model at the University of Nottingham in 2017 (a group of us reflected on this here: https://cracl.net/2017/12/01/sue-ellis-and-three-domains-of-literacy/).

Rupert Knight has also written about another event involving Sue at the University of Nottingham on the fantastic Primary Education Network blog: https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/primaryeducationnetwork/2020/04/22/three-domains-of-literacy/

This blog post is Part 1 of a series. You can read Part 2 here: https://www.brittanywright.co.uk/post/we-need-to-think-twice-about-reading-in-secondary-schools-part-2-making-reading-matter-in-school

References:

Catts, H.W. (2018) ‘The Simple View of Reading: Advancements and False Impressions’, Remedial and special education, 39(5), pp. 317–323. doi:10.1177/0741932518767563.

EEF (2021) Improving Literacy in Key Stage 2, EEF. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/literacy-ks2 (Accessed: 24 March 2022).

Ellis, S. (2017) ‘The Strathclyde Literacy Clinic: Developing Student Teacher Values, Knowledge and Identity as Inclusive Practitioners’, in Peters, M., Cowie, B., and Menter, I. (eds) A companion to research in teacher education / Michael A. Peters, Bronwen Cowie, Ian Menter, editors. Springer Nature, pp. 121–133.

Ellis, S. and Rowe, A. (2020) ‘Literacy, social justice and inclusion: a large-scale design experiment to narrow the attainment gap linked to poverty’, Support for Learning, 35(4), pp. 418–439. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12324.

GL Assessment (2020) Read All About It: Why reading is key to GCSE success. Available at: https://camdenlearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/GL-Assessment.pdf.

Gough, P.B. and Tunmer, W.E. (1986) ‘Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability’, Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), pp. 6–10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104.

Hogan, T.P. et al. (2011) ‘Increasing Higher Level Language Skills to Improve Reading Comprehension’, Focus on exceptional children, 44(3). doi:10.17161/foec.v44i3.6688.

Middlehurst, T. (2019) ‘The first published reports under the new Ofsted framework – what do we know?’, SSAT, 11 October. Available at: https://www.ssatuk.co.uk/blog/the-first-published-reports-under-the-new-ofsted-framework-what-do-we-know/ (Accessed: 13 April 2022).

Ofsted (2019) Education inspection framework, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework/education-inspection-framework

Ofsted (2021) Inspection of North Shore Academy. Available at: https://files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50169615.

Scarborough, H.S. (2003) ‘Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice’, in Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D.K. (eds) Handbook of Early Literacy Research: Volume 1. 1st edition. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 97–110.

Schools Week (2021) Key findings: Ofsted’s spring monitoring inspections. Available at: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/struggling-pupils-did-little-if-any-reading-during-lockdown-and-5-more-ofsted-findings/ (Accessed: 13 April 2022).