George Orwell once wrote that restating the obvious is the “first duty of intelligent people.” In that vein, allow us to restate the case for what may be literacy instruction’s richest but still-overlooked opportunity: a shift to mostly whole-class instruction during the early elementary “literacy block.” There is a gold mine of potential here.
Early-grade reading proficiency is powerfully predictive of later school success and life chances. Because of this, most schools we’ve visited in our 30-plus years of experience observing classrooms allot a generous two hours to daily literacy instruction.
But there’s a problem: Much of that literacy block in grades K-3 is often held captive to the small-group format. Over 90% of elementary school teachers report meeting with small groups of students three to five times a week. In practice, this means we are squandering learning time and reducing the odds that the most vulnerable students learn to read, speak, and write effectively.
Let’s do the math: A typical literacy period in grades K-3 lasts 120 minutes. If we divide a class of about 25 students into groups of four or five, that means that at least four groups are taught separately. Allowing for 20 minutes for the transitions between groups, each group receives only about 25 minutes of instruction from the teacher. If there are five groups, they will receive even less.
With time so limited, teachers have to devote almost all those 25 minutes to phonics and foundational skills. This means critical elements of literacy are likely to be mostly or entirely ignored. Only miniscule amounts of time are left for explicit instruction in the other indispensable elements of literacy—like reading and being read to and lessons in fluency, vocabulary, prosody, knowledge acquisition, discussion, and writing.
Given the stakes, we must ask: Is the small-group model truly superior to whole-class teaching for either reading or foundational literacy skills? Alas, no—despite recent claims that the “science of reading” requires small groups. Though small groups can be effective in certain circumstances, any advantage is wiped out by the model’s drastic reduction in the amount of instructional dosage.
Moreover, the small-group framework characteristically embraces the misbegotten notion that students learn best when groups are ability-based or otherwise “differentiated.” For years, small groups were deemed essential because of the supposed need to guide student reading with leveled texts. The assumption was that differences in reading ability necessitated finely grained, “differentiated,” instruction and materials for each child or group to be successful. More recently, and under the banner of the “science of reading,” small-group advocates are complicating and further fractionating the instructional environment by encouraging additional grouping for decoding instruction.
However, this hasn’t been such a good idea for guided reading. As John Hattie has demonstrated in his meta-analyses, differentiated instruction is less effective than providing the same treatment for all students. It denies struggling students the opportunity to engage with challenging material and texts—as they fall further behind. In this way, small-group, differentiated instruction is especially hurtful to the poor and underachieving students who most need effective teaching.
In our own work, we have observed how this heavy dependence on instructional grouping has contributed to what one teacher trainer has lamented as the biggest trend in education: a draconian but unacknowledged decline in the amount of instruction students now receive in U.S. classrooms.
Consider the whole-class alternative in the same scenario: If elementary teachers provide a phonics lesson to the entire class for 30 minutes, those educators still have 90 minutes of instruction time for other vital literacy skills. Those teachers can then devote an additional 15 minutes of phonics instruction to that small group who struggled with the initial lesson, while still giving those lagging students a full 45 minutes of foundational skills. And we still have about 75 minutes left for teaching all students the other crucial—and often most enjoyable—aspects of literacy.
Some will object that this model overlooks the efficacy of having students work at “centers” or stations while waiting their turn with the teacher. Yet, we have never found a single study affirming this. In our consulting work, we’ve both seen how these centers routinely consist of low-value or “cut, color, paste” activities and worksheets. They keep students busy but do little or nothing to make them better readers. They are no substitutes for an explicit, outcome-driven lesson replete with multiple cycles of guided practice, checks for understanding, and targeted reteaching.
We need not abandon small-group instruction but should employ it sparingly—and strategically. By doing so, we would increase the amount of instruction at least threefold, overnight. It would allow every child to spend much more time reading with purpose and building reading stamina; acquiring knowledge and vocabulary; writing and learning to write and participating in meaningful discussions—every day, all year. Joined with serious teacher training in effective whole-class instruction, we could reasonably expect to see unprecedented improvements in early-grade literacy acquisition, with tremendous subsequent benefits across all courses and grade levels.
Best of all, research demonstrates that mostly whole-class instruction of purposeful reading, dialogue, and discussion would have its greatest impact on poor and minority students—the students who have demonstrated the greatest need for large infusions of the core elements of literacy. The best schools and teachers we know, in the most challenging settings, have relied on this model. They have been the highest-achieving teachers in their respective schools, even whole districts.
These facts demand a reckoning. What are we waiting for?
