When we read, we are reading language. Thus, a strong foundation in oral language is essential to reading comprehension. The research base we refer to as the science of reading includes copious studies by researchers such as Andrew Biemiller, Kate Cain, Jane Oakhill, Diane August, and others on the impact of word knowledge on reading comprehension. Thus, in addition to teaching foundational decoding skills, schools must attend to assessing and being responsive to data on students’ language abilities both in their home languages and in the language of instruction. The following case study offers an approach that includes many principles that are grounded in research and evidence. Following this case study is a summary of best practices that can be replicated in any setting.
The linguistically, ethnically, and economically diverse student body in the Metropolitan School District (MSD) of Decatur Township in Indianapolis has historically struggled to become competent readers and writers by the critical third-grade mark. Like many schools across the country, the student population included more and more students who spoke diverse home languages and had varying experiences with English prior to entering kindergarten. There were only a handful of licensed preschool and childcare centers within the district, so many students were entering their first structured learning environment at age five. The school’s Title 1 status also indicated that many students and their families were managing competing priorities at home and were sometimes unable to provide the foundational language and literacy experiences that are associated with school readiness.
The preschool and kindergarten teachers in the early childhood building were determined to change the trajectory of their students. Through study, classroom implementation, coaching, and collaboration, the teachers worked to ensure that every student developed the language and literacy skills needed to reach proficiency in reading and writing.
Having investigated the four reciprocal domains of literacy, listening, speaking, reading, and writing, and recognizing that they are reciprocal—better listening and speaking skills lead to stronger reading and writing skills and stronger reading and writing skills lead to improving abilities in speaking and listening—the preschool and kindergarten team determined that the basic building blocks of oral language had to be included. This would benefit English learners/emergent bilingual (EL/EB) students who were in the early stages of English language development. It would also provide structure and support for students who had previously had limited exposure to academic language or a developmental language delay. In conjunction with the school’s instructional leadership team (ILT), the teachers created a year-long goal to increase the use of direct instruction in receptive and expressive language skills, as well as to embed oral language opportunities across all curricular areas.
Funding for professional development was limited, but the team discovered resident experts in their speech and language pathologists (SLPs). SLPs have research-based training in language development and principles of explicit instruction, in addition to their knowledge of how to treat speech and language disorders. In collaboration with the school’s SLPs, the ILT planned and delivered professional development sessions addressing the differences between speech articulation and language, the components of language (semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, and pragmatics), and how to encourage development in students’ use of vocabulary, syntax, and pronouns. The team then mapped out ongoing professional development sessions for the remainder of the year around instructional practices and routines related to oral language development for implementation in Tier 1 instruction. A universal language screener was administered to all students at the beginning of the year, in addition to WIDA language testing for EL/EBs. Language development opportunities in small groups were provided daily to EL/EB kindergarten students, and students identified as at-risk for language delays by the universal screener were placed in weekly Tier 2 intervention groups with SLPs for additional support and monitoring.
As a result of what they had learned, all teachers agreed to start each day with a morning meeting (see Karen Poplawski’s The Morning Meeting Book) that included a class greeting, a sharing time, an activity, and a written message from the teacher. Students learned about eye contact, pronunciation, and pragmatics while greeting their teacher and peers. During the sharing time, all students were talking with their partners about a specific prompt from the teacher while staying on topic and using complete sentences. A group of students would share out with the whole class with feedback from the teacher. Students would then participate in a whole-group activity, demonstrating their understanding of the rules and expectations. The teacher modeled age-appropriate syntax and fluency while reading the daily written message. Students asked and answered questions about the content of the message. This routine provided many oral language opportunities for all students, while also benefiting classroom culture and setting the tone for the day on a positive note. Another important component of the preschool and kindergarten day was providing all students with developmental play opportunities. The teachers recognized that dramatic play centers were one way to ensure that children had engaging scenarios each day in which to practice oral language with their peers. The benefits for students of connecting dramatic play with science and social studies themes were twofold: increasing content understanding and building oral language. Teachers wrote and received a grant to create shareable kits filled with engaging and relevant play items. An example is a kit that allowed students to construct an apple orchard and farm stand, which was shared when learning about fruit and vegetables that grow from seeds and where food comes from. By creating a wide variety of dramatic play centers with props and costumes that connected to classroom learning, the teaching staff ensured that children were eager to participate and practice their language skills.
Teachers also committed to three other ongoing practices throughout the school day. The first was teaching and expecting students to respond in complete sentences. If students were struggling with the complete sentence, the teacher would prompt them with a sentence starter or provide the complete sentence and have the student repeat it back. The second practice was teaching students how to respond when they don’t know what to say. Teachers used an anchor chart to prompt students with three choices: ask for more time, ask a friend for help, or ask the teacher for a hint. Students were still held accountable for responding to the question —opting out was not an option. The third practice was increasing student-to-student interactions throughout the day. Teachers purposefully planned opportunities for students to interact and use language with one another through directed interactions, interactive sharing (like turn-and-talks), joint tasks, and allowing time for natural conversations.
These daily routines were simple integrations throughout the school day with a big impact, but there was still a need for more direct and explicit instruction on developing oral language. Children would often describe things with one or two words or with a basic sentence that contained very little detail. One of the school’s SLPs introduced the ILT to the Expanding Expression Tool (EET), and the ILT knew that this tool could be a game-changer for students. The tool is designed with seven beads that serve as prompts for general descriptions. For example, if students had learned about bears, they would be able to use the EET to describe the group in which one could categorize bears, what bears can do, what they look like, what are they made of, the parts of a bear, where you might see them, and any other facts that they learned. Teachers were also able to use the EET for other language purposes besides oral expression, such as building background knowledge on new topics, bridging from oral expression to written expression, making associations, categorizing, and identifying similarities and differences. The EET was rolled out to students one bead at a time using explicit instruction, including modeling from the teacher, practice with feedback, and independent practice.
The weekly professional development sessions in oral language supported all teachers in implementing each promising practice with fidelity. In addition, the ILT and mentor teachers modeled each of the strategies in classrooms or through video for their colleagues to watch. Then, the mentors observed those teachers teaching the same strategy and provided personalized feedback to the mentees. Weekly professional learning community meetings gave small groups of kindergarten and preschool teachers opportunities to collaborate on goals specific to their classrooms’ needs. Data collected from teachers indicated that they felt confident in their abilities to implement each of the identified practices in daily instruction. And end-of-year student data confirmed that students were making gains in all areas of literacy, even as the instructional focus was on listening and speaking.
The yearlong focus on oral language also led to further study to enhance literacy instruction. Teachers worked diligently to build language comprehension skills and word recognition skills simultaneously. The next year’s professional development focus was on aligning decoding instruction to the science of reading and using curriculum-based measures to screen and monitor progress.
The teachers then shifted from focusing on letter names first to teaching students to decode from a “speech to print” approach and implementing sound walls in every classroom. The percentage of students leaving kindergarten at grade-level benchmarks on early indicators of literacy skills started climbing, and the school celebrated a few classrooms with 100% of students meeting those critical indicators for the first time in the school’s history.
As a community of learners, the preschool and kindergarten teachers in the MSD of Decatur Township were well on their way to equipping their students with the necessary foundational skills and language development to reach the literacy milestones that would get them to the finish line of proficient reading by third grade.
Action Summary
The Metropolitan School District (MSD) of Decatur Township implemented various practices aligned with reading research, commonly referred to as the science of reading. These practices contributed to improved literacy outcomes and are replicable in other educational settings. Below are some of the key practices implemented by Decatur:
- Decatur’s literacy plan intentionally addressed all areas of language and literacy—reading, writing, speaking, and listening—through strong, evidence-based practices.
- A goal was established to provide direct instruction in expressive and receptive language across all curricular areas. The school leveraged the expertise of their speech–language pathologists to enhance professional development for educators.
- Content vocabulary and knowledge were integrated not only within literacy blocks but also across the children’s day, including in play centers, which encouraged continued opportunities for language application.
- High expectations were set for all students, who were held accountable for answering questions in complete sentences. Scaffolds were provided for students who required additional support.
- In addition to reading and writing activities, purposeful language interactions, such as turn-and-talk and natural conversations, were systematically planned and executed.
- A new program was introduced to provide educators with an explicit model for deepening students’ understanding of content-area concepts and the accompanying vocabulary.
- Educator support was prioritized through collaborative professional learning communities (PLCs), opportunities for observation, and feedback designed to increase confidence.
- Students simultaneously received explicit and systematic instruction in foundational decoding skills. Curriculum-based measures were used to identify students who were decoding accurately and automatically and those in need of more explicit instruction and practice.
- Assessment and data collection were employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the steps Decatur had implemented and to guide instructional decisions.
By assessing their needs based on their student population and aligning instruction with the science of reading, Decatur focused on developing students’ oral language alongside foundational literacy skills, which not only increased educator confidence but also enhanced students’ literacy performance. Consider which of these steps could be adopted in your school setting to improve literacy outcomes.
Stefanie Husejnovic is a kindergarten teacher in her 14th year of education in MSD Decatur Township Schools and a board member of The Reading League Indiana. She has served on her school’s instructional leadership team for six years and coaches teachers in her collaborative teacher role, focusing on structured literacy instruction in grades K–2.
Susan Bryant is the preschool director for MSD Decatur Township Schools, with a career devoted to early childhood education as a classroom teacher and long-time principal of the early childhood center. Susan was acknowledged as the Marion County Principal of the Year and was instrumental in facilitating the professional learning and growth described in this article.
Andrea Setmeyer is a nationally certified school psychologist in Indianapolis, Indiana, and was the founding president of The Reading League Indiana chapter. She is honored to serve as the national chapter director for The Reading League, supporting its growing network of vibrant chapter leaders throughout the country.
Kari Kurto is the national science of reading project director at The Reading League. She previously served as a literacy specialist at the Rhode Island Department of Education, where she implemented the Rhode Island Right to Read Act. She is also an educator and Orton-Gillingham practitioner.
