Fellowship Application Reflections

We are currently in the process of reviewing finalist videos for the Goyen Literacy Fellowship. For the finalist exercise, finalists were asked to film a short outtake of a literacy lesson and then record a short reflection, where they explain the goals of the lesson. 

These videos have been a delight to watch. Among many other things, this morning I’ve watched: 

• 3rd graders participating in a Socratic Seminar about who gets to decide the meaning of a work of art. 

• Kindergarteners decoding and encoding multisyllabic words. 

• A 7th grader teacher leading sixty (yes, sixty) 7th graders through a fluency review to prepare for state testing. 

And so much more! Needless to say, we will have some hard decisions to make over the next two weeks. In an effort to avoid making some of these decisions, I thought I’d take a few minutes and share some observations from the full application pool. 

First, some numbers. 

For foundational skills instruction,

• 30% of our applicants are using UFLI.

• 25% of our applicants are using Heggerty.

• 15% of our applicants are using Fundations.

• 10% of our applicants are using SIPPS.

• 6% of our applicants are using a linguistic phonics program (EBLI or Reading Simplified).

• 5% of our applicants are using Morpheme Magic.

• 5% of our applicants are using SPIRE . 

For core curriculum,

• 15% of our applicants are using Wit and Wisdom.

• 10% of our applicants are using CKLA.

• 10% of our applicants are using Wonders.

• 4% of our applicants are using EL Education.

• 2% of our applicants are using Bookworms.

Now, of course, we’re working from a skewed, non-representative sample of teachers and interventionists. Our applicants are much more likely to be knowledgeable and passionate about structured literacy and the science of reading. 

Still, it’s remarkable to see how quickly UFLI has caught on. Last July, when we were reviewing applications for our first fellowship cohort, UFLI was not available yet. And now it’s the most popular resource among our applicants.  Likewise, last summer, none of our applicants mentioned linguistic phonic programs such as EBLI or Reading Simplified. As a recently trained Sounds-Write Practitioner, I was thrilled to see this small uptick. 

In terms of core curriculum, our numbers are basically consistent with last year’s. Still, it’s notable that many of our applicants are not using a core curriculum at all. This likely means they’re designing their own materials, using a homespun curriculum, and/or seeking out materials from other sources. 

Second, phonemic awareness without letters. 

I did not count, but a significant number of our finalist videos depicted phonemic awareness without letters (i.e. phonemic awareness in the dark). 

I have no interest in criticizing our applicants, some of whom will be literacy fellows, or starting another debate about this topic. But I think the prevalence of this practice is another important datapoint to keep in mind. Phonemic awareness without letters is clearly the norm, not the exception. Researchers, Twitter commentators, and Reading experts need to understand this before jumping to criticize and dismiss this practice out of hand.   

At the same, they all need to think carefully about how to start conversations about this subject. How do you engage teachers in a productive and constructive way? How do you induce shifts to instructional practice without shaming? How do you convey that phonemic awareness in the dark is not in the category of three-cueing or guided reading? But that it is simply not as effective or efficient as phonemic awareness with letters?

____

I’m sure we’ll have more to say about this round of applicants in the coming weeks, but for now, thank you to everyone who applied, everyone who reached out, everyone who nominated an incredible teacher, and everyone who has been supportive of this program.