I just finished reviewing the 147 applications we received for the Goyen Literacy Fellowship, and I wanted to share some things I’ve been thinking about. 

First, why we’re doing what we’re doing:

A few weeks ago, EdWeek published this powerful article from Sarah Schwartz about the challenges of translating the “science of reading” into classroom practice. 

In the article, Schwartz follows Raul Olivares Jr., a kindergarten teacher in North Carolina, who is eager to bring his new knowledge about structured literacy into his classroom. Olivares, however, needs more support and resources as he attempts to make this shift. He explains:

This is why the Goyen Foundation is establishing the Goyen Literacy Fellowship. 

We want to provide teachers like Mr. Olivares with concrete and compelling examples and resources for his classroom. We want to help teachers make the shift towards evidence-based literacy instruction. 

Certainly, I don’t expect this small fellowship to transform the way reading is taught nationwide. And I am also not a literacy coach. But I do expect that the materials produced and shared through this fellowship will be useful resources for teachers like Mr. Olivares. 

Second, the evaluation process: 

When I designed the application, I knew the questions were imperfect tools for assessing candidates. Reviewing the applications only clarifies this issue for me.

Ultimately, I want to select fellows that are exceptional teachers of reading, that are bringing joyful evidence-based practice into their classrooms. I want to choose fellows that will effectively capture these practices in bite-size digestible tidbits and will be exceptional models for other teachers that are trying to learn how to translate research into practice. 

Unfortunately, the application does not measure these things. Instead, it measures applicants’ writing ability and their knowledge of evidence-based literacy practices. Knowledge of evidence-based literacy practices is not irrelevant to teaching practice, but it’s also not sufficient. It’s easy to imagine a teacher who’s well-versed in research and theory but isn’t very knowledgeable about or skilled at translating that research into the classroom. 

So, what would a better application look like? Frankly, it would resemble the components of the fellowship. In the future, I should ask applicants to record short videos from their classrooms and evaluate their candidacy based on those outtakes. I could even ask other teachers to determine which content is most effective and why. I, after all, am not the target audience for this fellowship; classroom teachers are! 

Of course, in my defense, it would not have been reasonable to ask teachers to submit such videos because schools are not in session right now! But still…a good lesson for our next application cycle. 

Third, some interesting facts about our applicants and applications: 

1. The average applicant had 14 years of teaching experience. 

2. There were just four male applicants. 

3. 32% of the applicants were reading specialists or interventionists. 

4. 20% of the applicants were kindergarten teachers; 23% were first-grade teachers. 

5. When it comes to “high-quality instructional materials,” 12% of our applicants use Wit and Wisdom, 12% use CKLA, 5% use EL Education, and 2% Bookworms.  

6. Just 14% of the submitted lesson plans are focused on building knowledge. The vast majority are focused on phonics or phonemic awareness. This is not unexpected (one-third of the applicants were interventionists, after all) nor is it a bad thing AT ALL. But I also think it’s instructive of what educators think when they hear “science of reading” or “evidence-based literacy instruction.”

Fourth, next steps: 

So! What’s next? We notified all applicants today. Over the next week, our 45 finalists will make short videos in which they explain the lesson plan they submitted. And from there we will choose our fellows!