Journal of Literacy Research

Second Grade is Important: Literacy Instruction and Learning of Young Children in a High-Poverty School Diane Barone University of Nevada–Reno

T

his article is centered on the literacy learning and instruction that 13 children received from kindergarten through second grade. The children were enrolled in a school deemed at risk because of the children’s home backgrounds — low SES, minority status, and home language other than English. The purpose of this research was to provide a clearer picture of the day-to-day literacy instruction and learning of children in such a setting to better understand the documented achievement results of children in high-poverty schools. Although there was great variability in the literacy instruction provided to these children from skills-based to more meaning-based instruction, the majority of the children were considered to be at grade level or above at the end of second grade. However, the children displayed variable patterns of literacy development across these grades. During the second grade year meaning-based instruction was made available to students. The second grade teachers were able to build from the skillsbased instruction that the students received in kindergarten and first grade and provide a richer understanding of reading and writing. This article shares an overview of the instruction and learning that occurred over the three years and ends with a closer examination of the learning of two children who came to school with a home language of Spanish.

Several years ago, I began a research project that had as its main purpose the description of literacy instrucV. 35 No. 4 tion and growth demonstrated by 13 children in an 2003/2004 elementary school (kindergarten through sixth grade) PP. 965-1018 considered at risk because the majority of students are minority, learning English as a new language, and financially poor. My goal for this research project was to better understand literacy learning and instruction in

JLR

Page 965

Second Grade is Important

such a setting. I, like others, pondered why children in such schools have not been more successful as literacy learners. It is important to conduct such work because although we know much about the depressing statistics centered on the teaching and achievement of children in schools labeled at-risk (Allington & Walmsley, 1995), we know little about their day-to-day learning and instruction. As Neufeld and Fitzgerald (2001) state, “The need is great to describe and understand what happens with regard to these young at-risk readers” (p. 98). This is especially true since so many of these students experience literacy learning and instruction in English, not their home language. Learning to read and write is coupled with children’s learning of English, and there are few descriptions of this complex process (Garcia, 2000). In this article, I describe the first three years (kindergarten – grade two) of the learning and instruction that occurred. These years are particularly important to study because success in primary grade reading has been strongly connected to future academic success in school (Allington & Cunningham, 2002; Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986).

Theoretical Grounding To guide my work, I utilized the empirical evidence that centered on early literacy instruction and the importance of this instruction to students’ learning in the primary grades, especially students in schools considered at risk. Because ten of the focal children were learning English as a new language (see Table 1), I also reviewed the work that looked at the literacy instruction and learning of children acquiring English as a new language while they simultaneously learned to read and write in English. Finally, I considered research that identified predictors of academic success in elementary schools.

Literacy Instruction and Learning Once children move from home to school, classrooms become the most important context for successful literacy achievement. Teachers and their classroom environments are especially critical for children who rely on school for the majority of their learning, importantly literacy learning (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000). Within primary classrooms, the importance of oral and written language to support literate cognition has been documented (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000). Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, and Freppon (1995) document that children from high-poverty backgrounds gain knowledge of written narrative more successfully in classrooms that emphasize more holistic uses and functions of language. In these classrooms, conversations among students, and among students and teachers, are seen as critical to student achievement and understanding.

Page 966

Journal of Literacy Research

Building from these language expectations, Block, Oakar, and Hurt (2002) described characteristics of exemplary literacy teachers from preschool to fifth grade. Exemplary kindergarten teachers are “masterful guardians, catching, cradling, and championing every child’s discoveries about print” (p. 189). They value the familiar and believe in repetition of text with students to ensure student understanding. In first grade, “teachers are master encouragers and supporters” (p. 190). These exemplary teachers are described by the complexity of teaching that they orchestrate. They are able to teach multiple skills based on student need and know how to develop students’ literacy understandings. Moreover, they are excellent record keepers who can match informal assessment to instruction. Second grade teachers are described as “master demonstrators” (p. 190). These teachers engage students in important conversations about texts. Unlike previous grade level teachers, second grade teachers “purposely enlarge the number of phonics, decoding, and comprehension approaches so students will have new methods to learn” (p. 190). Other teaching and learning characteristics have been recommended for supporting children in becoming successful literacy learners. In Every Child a Reader: Action Plan (Hiebert, Pearson, Taylor, Richardson, & Paris, 1997), the authors recommended children in the primary grades: • know letters and sounds before formal reading and spelling instruction begin, • have a balance in instruction between phonics and meaning, • have books that support their ability to decode and books that support meaning, • engage in strategies centered on comprehension, • have opportunities to write, • be in smaller classes with about 15 students, • participate in assessment that is tied to curriculum, • be members of many groups that are organized for learning goals, • be given tutoring support if necessary, and • be engaged in reading at home. Coupled with this research on early literacy are the results from the National Reading Panel (2000) which found support for skills-based instruction in primary grades. This instruction included phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

Page 967

Second Grade is Important

Building from this work, Pressley et al. (2001) shared the complexity of exemplary first grade literacy instruction. These researchers considered more than just literacy practices in their discussion. They discovered that exemplary first grade teachers (a) have excellent classroom management, (b) create a positive learning environment, (c) have classrooms where students are busy academically by doing reading and writing activities, (d) have matched activities to student competence, (e) scaffold student learning, (f) support students to be in charge of themselves as learners, and (g) build strong connections across the curriculum. Primary classrooms are complex, and exemplary teaching practice builds upon this complexity. Teachers are required to establish nurturing environments that are carefully managed and grounded in high academic expectations for each child. They need to balance skills-based and meaning-based instruction. They also are expected to engage in ongoing assessment that is tied to instruction in order to scaffold instruction for individual learners and maximize each child’s learning opportunities. And finally, teachers need to do all of the above in a language-rich classroom that provides numerous opportunities for children to discuss their learning, even when these children are learning English as a new language.

Literacy Learning for Children Who Are Learning English as a New Language For this study, it was important to consider recommendations for literacy instruction for students who are linguistically diverse, as well, for the majority of students in the school came with a home language other than English. Nieto (1999) discussed the need for schools and teachers to engage in demanding curricula, respect a child’s home language and culture, have high expectations for students, and involve parents in order to be successful. Moll and Diaz (1987) considered the classrooms where Latino students developed into successful or not successful readers and writers, and they discovered that teachers who made text meaning and comprehension the main goal of instruction produced students who excelled at reading. Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, and Turner (1997) highlighted the importance of language in classrooms in noting that “language is a tool we use to express and make sense of our experience; it is a tool that transforms our thinking” (p. 369). Their beliefs echo those documented by Wilkinson and Silliman (2000). The centrality of language and communication are issues that teachers wrestle with as they provide exemplary instruction to young learners. The school experience for English-speaking children is based in their home language, and the teacher’s responsibility is to facilitate movement from home language to school or academic language (Beykont,

Page 968

Journal of Literacy Research

2002). For children who come to school with a home language that is not English, the teacher’s challenge is to value this home language and use it to support a child as he or she acquires English, which includes the academic language necessary to succeed in school (Cummins, 2003). Importantly, Gutierrez et al. (1997) remind us that students’ conceptions of language, literacy, and culturally appropriate ways of doing literacy in school contexts “are influenced by the experiences they bring to school, their previous instructional settings, and the ongoing activities that teachers and students construct in classrooms” (p. 369). When children enter classrooms where English is the language of instruction, their rich language backgrounds are dismissed. Gutierrez (2001) states “language, the most powerful mediating tool for mediating learning, in this case the children’s primary language, is excluded from the students’ learning tool kit” (p. 565). For example in a kindergarten classroom where English is used for instruction, these children have to demonstrate and develop their literacy understanding in an unfamiliar language. This situation is especially troublesome since in most kindergarten classrooms, learners new to English are not provided additional time or resources to accomplish this task. They are expected to meet grade-level expectations, as are the English-speaking students, by the end of year. This is an enormous challenge for students and teachers (Macias & Kelly, 1996; Nieto, 2000). When working with students who are learning English as they learn to read and write in English, teachers also need to consider and build students’ language proficiency. Cummins (2003) suggests that teachers help students develop conversational fluency (children typically come to kindergarten with this ability) which takes a year or two, develop discrete language skills (English language learners [ELLs] can learn these skills early in the language acquisition process and throughout schooling), and develop academic language proficiency, which includes the less-frequent vocabulary that only appears in books. While Cummins details the evolution of language proficiency, Fillmore (1997) specifically details strategies that teachers can use to facilitate this process: • help learners make sense of text • call attention to the way language is used in text • discuss meaning and interpretation of sentences and phrases • make connections to other places (text) where a word is used • help students discover grammatical cues that signal relationships like cause/ effect. (p. 4)

Page 969

Second Grade is Important

The recommendations for exemplary literacy instruction for young children and for English language learners overlap. Teachers are expected to provide language-rich classrooms where children explore the details of print while also focusing on meaning gained from text. Unique to the instruction for ELLs is the focus on language and the support provided to these students as they simultaneously learn English while learning to read and write. And importantly, Gutierrez (2001) notes that ELLs must build a new language tool kit to accomplish literacy proficiency in Englishonly classrooms.

The Importance of Primary Literacy Learning It is important to remember that the literacy learning of children in the primary grades is often singled out as the benchmark for future literacy achievement. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) state that quality instruction in kindergarten and the primary grades is the single best weapon against reading failure. It is during the first grade year that children identified themselves as good or poor readers (Hiebert et al., 1997). Additionally, Alexander, Entwisle, and Horsey (1997) found that the precursors of school failure are established as early as first grade. The academic achievement of children in the primary grades sets the tone for performance patterns that continue into later grades. Children struggle in first grade and following grades because of difficulties with developing literacy skills and knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Stanovich’s research (1986) documented that learning to read in the early grades was necessary for success in all academic areas. Juel’s research (1988) concluded that a child who was a poor reader in first grade would most likely be a poor reader at the end of fourth grade. She, as well as Stanovich, noted that children who were poor readers in the primary grades often had acquired little phonological awareness and that students who had poor phonological awareness were most often associated with poverty backgrounds. Summarizing this research, Baker, Kameenui, and Stahl (1994) stated that: “Diverse learners face on a daily basis the tyranny of time, in which the educational clock is ticking away while they remain at risk of falling further and further behind in their schooling” (p. 375). From this research background, I embarked on a research project within the context of a high-poverty school to study the literacy learning and instruction of 13 children. I wanted to describe how teachers dealt with the complexity of teaching children to read and write when the majority of students were learning English as a new language and they were expected to provide all instruction in English. I wanted to describe how students responded to this instruction and how each one developed competence in reading and writing.

Page 970

Journal of Literacy Research

Method I chose a longitudinal multicase study design for this research project (Yin, 1994). By utilizing this design, I was able to explore literacy learning and instruction in classrooms without overtly manipulating the classroom context (Merriam, 1998; Naumes & Naumes, 1999). Moreover, the case studies of the teachers and students in this report are descriptive and provide an overview of instruction and learning from kindergarten to second grade

Researcher Stance I entered this study with experience in longitudinal case study research (Barone, 1999). I had followed a group of students from preschool through the primary grades in multiple school settings to describe them as literacy learners. In addition to my work as a researcher, I was a teacher of first graders, second graders, and third graders and brought these personal experiences to this study (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999). In most of this teaching, I worked with children considered to be at risk for school success because of their home demographics. I believe that children who attend high poverty schools can become readers and writers who can decode text and understand its meanings. I value teachers in such settings who have high expectations for students and help them achieve (Padron, Waxman, Brown, & Powers, 2000). I value teachers who explicitly help students build connections between their home and school experiences (Nieto, 1999).

Setting Howard Elementary School (pseudonyms are used throughout) was the site for this study. It is one of the older schools in a mid-sized school district in a western U. S. city. The neighborhood surrounding the school consists of single-family homes, multiple-family homes, apartments, and public housing. Unlike other schools that see a change in demographics, this school has always been known for its high enrollment of minority students and its low standardized test scores. Howard Elementary typically enrolled 600 students each year and the average daily attendance rate was 92% (same as the district average). Of the children enrolled in this school, 60% were classified as learning English as a second language and 8% received special education services. Eighty percent of the children received free or reduced priced lunches. Additionally, the school had a breakfast, lunch, and dinner program for students. Eighty-five percent of the children were classified as Hispanic. Fifteen percent of the children participated in after-school care and 5% qualified for gifted and talented services.

Page 971

Second Grade is Important

Teacher experience ranged from no years to ten years or more. Eight percent were new to teaching, 42% had between 1 to 3 years experience, 24% had 4 to 6 years experience, 5% had 7 to 9 years, and the remaining 21% had 10 or more years experience. Of the teachers who taught the focal students, only one teacher, Mrs. Messina, was fluent in Spanish. One second-grade teacher, Mrs. Smith, learned English as a new language in high school, but her home language was not similar to the languages of her students. Literacy instruction was seen as important in this school. In the primary grades, the morning was blocked for literacy instruction without interruption. Instruction was balanced and focused on oral language, phonological skills, read aloud, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, interactive writing, and independent writing. To help teachers with strategies to support this curriculum there was professional development in literacy provided each week. Additionally, there were two reading consultants in the school — one worked with primary teachers and the other with intermediate teachers. Reading Recovery was available for qualifying first graders. These structures were in place prior to the No Child Left Behind legislation.

Participants Children. I identified 16 focal children during their first week of kindergarten. The teachers met with each child individually for assessment. I met with parents while their child was assessed to gain their permission for their child to be included in the study. At first I approached any family that arrived, but later I only approached families with boys, for instance, when I had a sufficient number of girls. A bilingual aide helped with this process. I selected equal numbers of boys and girls who represented the ethnic diversity within the school. At the beginning of the study, there were nine children of Hispanic origin (eight of the children had families that came from various locations in Mexico; one family came from El Salvador), one child was Filipino, two children were African-American, and three children were European-American. Of the ten focal children who were learning English as a new language, only one had any preschool experiences. Three children (one European-American girl with English as her home language, one African-American boy with English as his home language, and one Hispanic boy with Spanish as his home language) moved between kindergarten and second grade and are not included in the analysis (see Table 1 for further information about the children).

Page 972

Journal of Literacy Research

Table 1. Literacy Development Through Second Grade: What Students Learned Children’s names, home language, and preschool experience

End of K

End of first

Beginning second

End of second

Anthony English preschool

Able to track memorized text Uses book language to retell Sound/ symbol knowledge (Martin/George)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text Below grade level, Level 132 (Cullen/Adams)

Letter Name1 Level 12 to 14 (Scott/Ford)

Within word pattern1 Reading chapter books At grade level, level 212

Bonnie Spanish

Recognizes x Looks at books (Harter)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text Below grade level, Level 122 Reading Recovery (Cullen/Adams)

Letter Name1 Level 12 to 14 (Scott/Ford)

Within word pattern1 Reading simple novels At grade level, level 212

Calvin English preschool

Recognizes most letters but t and y Looks at books (Harter)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text At grade level, Level 162 Reading Recovery (Cullen/Adams)

Letter Name1 Level 6 (Stewart/Harrison)

Letter Name1 Below grade level, Level 142

Eric English preschool

Sound/symbol Uses book language to retell stories Able to read predictable text (Martin/George)

Within word pattern1 Independent reader Developing fluency At grade level, Level 172 (Messina/Denton)

Within word pattern1 Level 2 (Stevens/Smith)

Syllable Juncture1 Above grade level, Level 282

Freddy Spanish

Recognizes f Looks at books Spanish dominant (Harter)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text Below grade level, Level 122 (Shott/Sims)

Letter Name1 Level 6 (Stevens/Smith)

Letter Name1 At grade level, level 212

Heidee Tagalog- from Philippines

Sound/symbol Uses oral language to retell stories Able to memorize predictable text (Harter)

Letter Name1 Independent reader Developing fluency Above grade level, Level 202 (Kirby/Mears)

Letter Name1 Level 20 (Scott/Ford)

Within word pattern1 Above grade level, Level 282

Page 973

Second Grade is Important

Children’s names, home language, and preschool experience

End of K

End of first

Beginning second

End of second

Jaryd English

Recognizes j Looks at books (Harter)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text At grade level, Level 172 Reading Recovery (Shott/Sims)

Letter Name1 Level 4 (Stevens/Smith)

Within word pattern1 Beginning fluency Below grade level, Level 182

Josie Spanish

Recognizes some letters; e, s, l, n, o, and i Looks at books (Martin/George)

Letter Name1 Independent reader Above grade level, Level 202 (Shott/Sims)

Letter Name1 At grade level, level 16 (Scott/Ford)

Within word pattern1 At grade level, level 212 Fluent reader

Julio Spanish

Recognizes some letters; c, j, p, m Looks at books (Harter)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text Below grade level, Level 122 Reading Recovery (Messina/Denton)

Letter Name1 Level 10 (Stevens/Smith)

Letter Name1 Below grade level, Level 142

Lucero Spanish

Recognizes most letters but u, v, w, and y Uses oral language to retell stories in Spanish and English Uses book language for retelling (Martin/George)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text At grade level, Level 172 (Shott/Sims)

Letter Name1 Level 17 (Stewart/Harrison)

Within word pattern1 Above grade level, Level 242

Maria Spanish

Sound/symbol Oral language for retelling (Harter)

Letter Name1 Independent reader Developing fluency Above grade level, Level 202 (Shott/Sims)

Letter Name1 Level 15 (Stewart/Harrison)

Within word pattern1 At grade level, Level 212

Page 974

Journal of Literacy Research

Children’s names, home language, and preschool experience

End of K

End of first

Beginning second

End of second

Maritza Spanish

Recognizes some letters; b, m, p, t, and a Looks at books (Martin/George)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable texts Below grade level, Level 142 Reading Recovery (Cullen/Adams)

Starts 2nd grade in Mexico (until end of September) Letter Name1 Level 8 (Stevens/Smith)

Within word pattern1 Above grade level, Level 262

Sandra Spanish

Recognizes most letters, but u and w Looks at books (Martin/George)

Letter Name1 Relies on predictable text Below grade level, Level 142 Reading Recovery (Kirby/Mears)

Letter Name1 Level 8 (Stevens/Smith)

Within word pattern1 Above grade level, Level 282

Notes. 1.

Spelling development (This is an overview of each developmental phase. For further refinement and exploration of these phases, see Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2000)

Semiphonemic -

Represents initial and sometimes final consonants (e.g., R for rat)

Letter Name -

Represents initial and final consonants, includes a vowel although it is often confused (e.g., PEN for pin). Students use the vowel sound to represent long vowels (e.g., PIN for pine). They use a one letter for each sound strategy (e.g., SEP for ship or COT for coat).

Within Word -

Represents initial and final consonants, most short vowels accurately represented, confused with long vowel patterns (e.g., RANE for rain). These students are able to move beyond a one-to-one representation rule. So, for example, they might spell plain as PLANE or PLAEN where they provide 2 letters to represent a single sound.

Syllable Juncture -

Represents single syllable words accurately, confuses what to do when affixes are added to words (e.g., HOPING for hopping).

2. Text gradient guide (based on Reading Recovery levels). Each level indicates benchmark levels for grade level placements. First grade – Level 16 Second grade – Level 20 Third grade – Level 22

Page 975

Second Grade is Important

Kindergarten Teachers. During the kindergarten year, I worked with three teachers. The children attended school for half of the day. In one room, Mrs. Harter was responsible for the morning and afternoon classes all four days (kindergarten students only attended school on Mondays through Thursdays; Fridays were used for staff development). In the other room, Mrs. Martin and Mrs. George, split a contract. Each teacher taught two days each week and they alternated coming to staff development on Fridays (see Table 2 for details about each teacher). First-Grade Teachers. Four sets of first grade teachers team-taught because although there was class-size reduction in the primary grades in the state of the study, there was not sufficient classroom space to support stand-alone classes. The teams of teachers were: Mrs. Kirby and Ms. Mears, Mrs. Cullen and Mrs. Adams, Mr. Shott and Mrs. Sims, and Mrs. Messina and Mrs. Denton. Second-Grade Teachers. In second grade, the children were in three, team-taught classrooms. The teams were: Mrs. Stewart and Mrs. Harrison, Miss Scott and Miss Ford, and Miss Stevens and Mrs. Smith. The majority of the primary teachers in this school had several years of teaching experience. They felt confident in their abilities to establish a classroom, maintain discipline, and teach to the needs of their students. Unlike other high poverty schools, the primary teachers in this building were not new to teaching. Table 2. Overview of Teachers K-2 Grade

Teacher

Experience

Overview of literacy instruction

K

Mrs. Harter

15 years First year in K

Phonemic awareness activities Read aloud Phonics activities Take home books Alphabet journals Personal words Worksheets

Mrs. Martin

11 years First year in K

Read aloud Take home books Alphabet journals Center activities Phonics worksheets

Mrs. George

2 years Second year in K

Class discussion Worksheets

Page 976

Journal of Literacy Research

Grade

Teacher

Experience

Overview of literacy instruction

1

Mrs. Kirby

4 years Fifth year in 1

Mrs. Mears

1 year Second year in 1

Word wall Independent reading Reading groups Centers Phonics instruction Journals Shared/guided reading Interactive writing Reading Buddies

Mrs. Cullen

5 years Sixth year in 1

Mrs. Adams

6 years Third year in 1

Mr. Shott

7 years Second year in 1

Mrs. Sims

7 years Third year in 1

Mrs. Messina

15 years Sixteenth year in 1

Mrs. Denton

9 years Eighth year in 1

Mrs. Stewart

No experience First year in 2

Mrs. Harrison

20 years Second year in 2

2

Word wall Independent reading Reading groups Phonics instruction Story time Copy work Word wall Independent reading Reading groups Learning centers Phonics instruction Shared/guided reading Journals Spelling tests Word wall Independent reading Reading groups Learning centers Phonics instruction Shared/guided reading Journals Spelling tests Computers DOL Spelling groups Narrative/informational text Writing Journals Reading groups Basal text Word study Authors’ chair

Page 977

Second Grade is Important

Grade

Teacher

Experience

Overview of literacy instruction

2

Miss Scott

5 years First year in 2

Miss Ford

1 years First year in 2

DOL Spelling groups Narrative/informational text Writing Journals Reading groups Basal text Read aloud for writing Think, pair, share

Miss Stevens

2 years Third year in 2

Miss Smith

2 years Third year in 2

DOL Spelling groups Narrative/informational text Writing Journals Reading groups Basal text Oral language vocabulary

Data Collection Throughout the study, I observed the students; interviewed the students, their teachers, and the principal; and collected work samples. A doctoral student who was experienced in taking field notes observed in each room to secure reliability in the observational notes and to guard against any bias on my part. We simultaneously took field notes in the same classroom until our notes were over 90% similar in reporting the teaching and learning that occurred, and then we observed in different classrooms each week. We also debriefed on tentative findings and the doctoral student helped to construct a synthesis of the findings. Following are more specific descriptions of the data collection process. Observation. The children were observed weekly, usually during the time set aside for literacy instruction. During kindergarten, the focal children were observed during an entire morning or afternoon session. In the first and second grades, the morning was protected for literacy instruction, and observation happened during that time block. At the beginning and end of first grade and second grade, a whole day of instruction was observed. In this way, I could see how literacy instruction was embedded in other content-based instruction. For each child, I created a literacy profile based on these observations and grounded in the work of Bear and Barone (1998), Clay (2001), Morris (1993), and Sulzby (1985). These profiles were compiled by teasing out from field notes, interviews, and student work any

Page 978

Journal of Literacy Research

evidence of a child’s literacy accomplishments. The profiles, as well as all field notes, were shared with the teachers for accuracy. The teachers often contributed additional information that helped to refine my understanding of the literacy development of individual children. Interviews. The teachers were formally interviewed twice per year for an hour. At the beginning of the year, I asked them about their goals and how they viewed each of the focal children as literacy learners. At the end of year, interviews focused on the whole year, what they thought went well, and what had proved problematic in their literacy instruction and the learning of their students. I also had informal chats with the teachers during each of my visits to their rooms. I tape-recorded and transcribed end-of-the-year interviews. Other interviews were not tape-recorded, and notes about their content were made retrospectively. At the end of second grade, I interviewed each child about his or her reflections about experiences in reading and writing during the year. These interviews occurred in May, typically lasted about five minutes, and were tape-recorded and later transcribed. Artifacts. I collected work samples from the students throughout the school year. These most often included journal entries, worksheets, and writing samples. I also recorded samples of the text they read and the conversations they had with their teachers. I collected teachers’ informal assessments as well. These varied as each teacher chose the literacy assessments for the students in his or her classroom. The only constant among literacy assessments was running records (Clay, 1993) done by the first and second grade teachers. At the end of each year, I collected end of the year assessments from the teachers. Again, these varied by teacher with some conducting running records, spelling inventories, writing samples, and so on; other teachers chose not to engage in any final assessments. If teachers did not conduct an end of the year assessment, I then asked the focal students in the class to: 1. Draw a self-portrait (purpose was to relax the child). 2. Write about himself or herself (purpose was to get a sense of his or her ability to record thoughts, use of conventions, and to see word knowledge). 3. Complete a developmental spelling inventory (Bear & Barone, 1989) (purpose was to provide a window into children’s understandings of words. This list has words that began with simple CVC words like bed to more difficult words like pleasure or preparing).

Page 979

A National Survey of Spelling Instruction

Data Analysis The data were analyzed using an interpretive approach. I sought an understanding of the teaching and learning in these classrooms (Erickson, 1986). To accomplish this, I reviewed all data routinely and built individual profiles of each child’s literacy learning. I also compiled descriptions of the typical teaching provided to students. I noted the practices, groupings, and expectations of the teachers for their students, how they varied, and the reasons for any changes. More specifically, I reviewed all field notes to document student learning and instruction. Following several passes through field notes, I considered all of the student artifacts. I matched these to descriptions of the students’ literacy benchmarks or the teacher’s instruction. The artifacts collected over time provided a visual record of each child’s literacy development that I reviewed and matched to teacher comments to note congruity. Following these analyses, I again considered the interviews so that explanations of instructional decisions and student learning could be further explored. I identified quotes that indicated when teachers made decisions about their literacy instruction, whether it was new for a teacher, and how they felt about its success. I also selected teacher quotes that indicated aspects of their year that were successful or resulted in frustration. I also collected quotes from students that highlighted their beliefs about themselves as readers and writers. I recorded books or activities that they particularly liked or disliked to more fully understand their classroom experiences. Throughout data analysis, I made cross-case comparisons between the children to note differences and similarities in development, particularly looking at grade level accomplishments. I used the descriptions of literacy instruction in each room as the backdrop for a better understanding of each child’s literacy development.

Results and Discussion I have organized this section into four major parts. The first three share an overview of the teaching and learning at each grade level (see Table 1). Table 1 documents which classrooms the focal children were in each year and provides a gloss of their literacy development. The majority of data used to complete Table 1 came from teachers’ literacy assessments. Observations, interviews, and artifact data were used to extend the information gleaned from the informal assessments. The fourth part centers on two case studies to provide a more complete picture of literacy learning and teaching across the three years. To tease out the glosses reported in Table 1, supporting detail is shared for each category. For example, in kindergarten, the teachers assessed letter knowledge

Page 980

Journal of Literacy Research

and sound/symbol relationship understanding. For children’s retelling ability and memorization of predictable text, I observed during times when children self-selected books to read. I used Sulzby’s (1985) classifications of retelling behavior to guide these observations. Because the kindergarten teachers provided no other opportunities for children to engage with books and because they did not assess this behavior, I relied on observation and sometimes informal interaction with a child to gather this information. The first and second grade teachers frequently assessed their students’ oral miscues through the use of running records. Results of assessments determined the book levels of text that groups of students explored during guided reading. These levels were also used as benchmarks at the end of the year to determine if a student was at, above, or below grade level in reading. The teachers also used a qualitative spelling inventory (Bear & Barone, 1989; Bear, et al., 2000) at the beginning and end of the year to determine students’ word learning strategies and knowledge. Most of the spelling assessments were evaluated and filed away. However, the second grade teachers created word study groups within their classrooms that reflected students’ varying levels of word knowledge determined through the use of a spelling inventory. The fourth section highlights the literacy learning of two children as they navigated their kindergarten through second grade classrooms. These close explorations provide a clearer picture of the learning contexts the children experienced and how they responded. The children chosen were both learning English as a new language, as their home language was Spanish. One child, Sandra, is considered to be above grade level at the end on second grade and the other child, Julio, is considered to be below grade level. Both children participated in Reading Recovery support during first grade.

Teaching and Learning in Kindergarten through Second Grade Kindergarten Teaching. The teachers varied considerably in their literacy instruction. Mrs. Harter began her day by having children engage in a phonemic awareness activity such as recognizing the first sound in their name. She followed this by reading to the children. At the beginning of the year, she encouraged the children to participate in talk about the books she read such as Brown Bear (Martin, 1967) and alphabet books. Because the children struggled to respond in English, this conversation time became nonexistent as the year progressed. She often commented, “I am frustrated with the lack of real conversation centered on books.” By November, she stopped reading to her students on a daily basis and spent the time in 30 minutes of whole group phonics activities such as identifying words that began with the same initial consonant. Next, smaller groups (about six children)

Page 981

Second Grade is Important

were expected to complete the same assignments. Typically, they worked on a math paper, colored a take-home book, or copied words that began with a similar consonant into a journal. The only time children explored text on their own was when they looked at library books as they entered the classroom each day. For a brief time, Mrs. Harter had each child determine the words that he or she wanted to learn. The child met with her privately and she copied individual words onto cards. The child then added this word to previously collected words and practiced reading them. This strategy was abandoned after a month because of classroom management issues. To summarize the day, students entered and explored books on their own for 15 minutes. Following this, children listened to a story or engaged in phonics-based activities for 30 minutes. The teacher then explained center activities where the children worked the remainder of the session. As children worked in centers, Mrs. Harter infrequently worked with a group. Most often she interacted with a single child or corrected or prepared materials at her desk. Mrs. Martin and Mrs. George shared classroom space and students, but their expectations varied dramatically. Mrs. Martin began each day by reading to the children, most often predictable big books. The children listened but were not encouraged to contribute during this reading. Mrs. Martin often commented, “There isn’t enough time to get everything done that I need to.” Then she had children move to centers where older children came to help. Children often listened to another story centered on a theme like family, holidays, or helpers and then completed a worksheet follow-up. As in Mrs. Harter’s room, the children did not explore leveled text on their own or with the support of a teacher. When Mrs. George was teaching, she spent the first part of the day, about an hour, having children recognize and spell their names. She showed a flashcard with a child’s name on it, and a child was called on to read it and then say the letters used to spell the name. Following this activity, the children moved to centers where they completed numerous worksheets centered on math and phonics skills. To summarize instruction in this kindergarten, during the two days that Mrs. Martin taught, children listened to a big book that changed each day. They then moved to center activities for the remainder of the day. Mrs. Martin worked at one center each day and therefore only saw half of the children in her class each week. On days that Mrs. George taught, the children typically spent 45 minutes to an hour spelling names or chatting. The remainder of their day was spent in centers while Mrs. George sat at her desk and interacted with students when they brought their papers to her to be corrected.

Page 982

Journal of Literacy Research

Both kindergarten classrooms were quiet. Children had few opportunities to use conversational or academic language. When Mrs. Harter’s students did not respond richly to stories, she eliminated spaces for conversation. Mrs. Martin reasoned that there just wasn’t time. Mrs. George did engage children in conversation about their names, but because she did not read to her students there were no conversations about books. When children talked, it was usually to their friends at their table and the conversation was in Spanish. These environments are particularly troubling when considering the importance of talk to learning as studied by Wilkinson and Silliman (2000) and Gutierrez et al. (1997). Children had to learn conversational and academic language on their own, thus making this task all the more difficult (Gutierrez, 2001). Moreover, the kindergarten teachers provided no support for children in bridging their home language to the school language of English. Their home language was left outside the classroom door or engaged in surreptitiously during small group work. This lack of respect or acknowledgement of the home language runs contrary to its importance as demonstrated by Nieto (1999, 2000). The whole class curriculum, devoid of any personal connections to students, is again contrary to research about classrooms where high-poverty, language-rich students succeed (Block et al., 2002; Nieto, 1999; Pressley et al., 2001; Purcell-Gates et al., 1995). In addition, the curriculum centered on letters and sounds and did not provide opportunities for children to understand much about books or the meaning gained by reading and discussing them. Two stories per week were typical, and teachers never reread any of them. There were no explicit connections between phonemic awareness or phonics and books read by the teacher. These teachers were not able to operationalize the recommendations by Hiebert et al. (1997) to strike a balance between phonics and meaning. They expected that some children would discover the relationships between sounds and letters, but that the majority would not. Mrs. George said, “There is so much to teach these kids that learning the alphabet is a big accomplishment for most.” These expectations and the lowlevel curriculum have not been noted in helping high-poverty children succeed in school (Fillmore, 1997; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Nieto, 1999). Finally, while Block et al. (2002) described exemplary kindergarten teachers as “master guardians, catching, cradling, and championing every child’s discoveries about print” (p. 189), these teachers only noted their students’ knowledge of letters, sounds, shapes, and colors. Because of the way they structured learning, through centers where they were at one or at their desks, they rarely recognized students individually; rather they taught to the class. All materials were prepared

Page 983

Second Grade is Important

for all students, and all students were expected to be successful regardless of their language background. In addition, the only familiar part of kindergarten for students was the routine of the day. This time-driven curriculum did not provide space for children to explore books, writing, or the sounds of language. Kindergarten Learning. The majority of the children ended kindergarten with some phonemic awareness and understanding of stories (see Table 1). However, for the most part, the children relied on their teachers to carefully scaffold this knowledge. For example, when Bonnie was asked about a specific letter or sound connected to a letter, she needed the teacher to tell her. She was unable to do this matching with new letters herself. In fact, even with daily structured phonics lessons, she was only able to recognize the letter x at the end of the year. This was the case for the majority of the children. Only four of the focal children (Anthony, Eric, Heidee, and Maria) had a rudimentary understanding of sound/symbol relationships at the end of the year. Two of the children (Freddy and Jaryd) could not write their first names by year’s end. These results are ironic, as the majority of classroom instruction was devoted to the alphabetic principle, not on the meaning aspects of reading. For the most part, the children listened to stories occasionally, although they infrequently chatted about them. However, three of the observed children (Heidee, Maria, and Lucero) could retell a story using an oral language tradition. Anthony, Eric, and Lucero retold stories using book language and sounded as though they were reading. The remaining children retold stories by identifying illustrations on a page with no attempt to build a story across pages. They spent most of their time exploring illustrations (Sulzby, 1985). Occasionally teachers shared predictable texts through reproducible take-home books with the children, although this most often happened in centers without teacher support, and these stories were never reread. Eric and Heidee were the only children at the end of the year who memorized predictable text and could read it when observed. To summarize literacy learning in kindergarten, the majority of the focal children left with very rudimentary knowledge of the alphabetic principle and little understanding of books. Moreover, they had no exposure to informational text during this year. With respect to the language of instruction, most children, even those whose home language was English, spent most of their time listening to their teachers and rarely offered answers to any questions posed, even when the questions were literal. In centers, the children whose home language was Spanish freely conversed with each other in Spanish. At the end of the year, Freddy, Julio, and Sandra were the only children who left not feeling comfortable talking about instruction in English.

Page 984

Journal of Literacy Research

The children’s literacy knowledge at the end of kindergarten is troubling. Most of the focal students had minimal phonemic awareness as demonstrated in their lack of letter recognition and sound/symbol knowledge. Stanovich (1986), the National Reading Panel (2000), and Snow et al. (1998) have documented the importance of this knowledge to reading proficiency in later grades. Further, as Hiebert et al. (1997) noted, the students missed rich engagement with books so that they were denied opportunities to experience the meaning fullness of reading, to explore writing, or to see how words or letters on worksheets are represented in text, all critical aspects to successful literacy learning. Perhaps most important to these young students, their first experiences in school did not value their home language and did not include their parents in any way other than parent conferences (Nieto, 1999). Further, these teachers expected their students to be passive learners, and they did not build personal relationships with them. Understandably, this is not an easy task for teachers when working with over 50 students, most of whom do not speak English, for only two and a half hours each day. However, for students to be successful, respect for them as individuals is critical (Flores-Gonzalez, 2002). This did not happen during kindergarten. First-Grade Teaching. The major curricular focus in first grade was on phonics and decoding text. Teachers believed that students needed a solid foundation in phonics so that they would be successful in reading. The teachers broke their students into small ability groups for guided reading instruction each day. When students were not working with teachers, they typically moved between centers and their desks where they completed packets of worksheets. In centers, students typically listened to a taped story, read leveled text from book boxes, or engaged in a phonics activity like using magnetic letters. The worksheet packets did not vary, and all students were expected to complete them daily. Only one classroom (Cullen/Adams) varied dramatically from the others. The teams of Kirby/ Mears, Shott/ Sims, and Messina/Denton engaged the children in word wall activities, independent reading, small group guided and shared reading, phonics instruction that included consideration of short and long vowels, journal writing, and spelling. The teachers spent the majority of the morning working with small groups on leveled texts (Reading Recovery levels were used to determine difficulty levels.). The school had an extensive library of leveled text sets for primary students. Typically, the small groups met with the teacher to practice reading previously read texts independently. Then the teacher introduced the new book through a picture walk. After this introduction, the children took turns reading each page of text. When this first reading was completed, the children reread the

Page 985

Second Grade is Important

book to themselves. During this time, the teacher routinely conducted a running record with one child. The major focus during group reading was on sound/symbol work and oral reading. In addition to small group reading, each teacher team read to their students daily. The books selected varied by room. Kirby/ Mears chose books from their personal collections that often were Caldecott winners. Messina/ Denton preferred to read phonetically controlled text to students, such as books constructed around the same initial consonant or long vowel. In addition, these teachers had a rich collection of computer-based books from authors like Mercer Mayer. In Shott/ Sims’s room, Mr. Shott engaged his students in talk around books each day. At the beginning of the year, he read picture books, predictable text, and nonfiction big books to students. They often stopped to chat about an illustration or a specific word. One day, the students guessed the meaning of amazing. He then wrote the word on a card and put it into the mouth of a stuffed buzzard called Buzzy who helped the students remember and use new words. As the year progressed, he moved to reading chapter books like The Boxcar Children. Each day students retold what had happened the previous day; only when the retelling was complete would he continue reading. They also divided their class daily for word dictation, one group of students wrote short vowel words and the other group worked with long vowel words. In the Cullen/Adams classroom, literacy instruction was very different. Similar elements included the word wall and taking running records for assessment. These teachers began each day with children copying sentences from the board. They might copy, “Today is Friday. It is raining out. Did you bring an umbrella?” As children copied, one teacher checked to make sure that each child had copied correctly while the other conducted running records. When a child completed the copying activity, he or she moved to the classroom library for independent reading without teacher support. The classroom library consisted chiefly of Dr. Seuss books and Golden books. There was no leveled text in this room, although it was available in the materials room in the school. This reading consumed most of the morning. Next, the children were broken into two large groups and the teachers usually used the basal text for this reading instruction. They read a story to students and, following the reading, students answered literal questions about the text. If there was time, the students reread the text in a round-robin format. During first grade, six of the focal children qualified for and received Reading Recovery throughout the year. In the Cullen/Adams room about 50% of the children qualified. Three of the four focal children in this room were enrolled in Reading

Page 986

Journal of Literacy Research

Recovery. Of these three children, two (Maritza and Bonnie) left reading below first grade level while Calvin read at grade level. To summarize, the first grade teachers recognized the varying literacy knowledge of their students as demonstrated through their running record assessments and in their ability grouping. The teachers in three of the classrooms carefully assessed children and matched leveled text to their development. However, as documented by Erickson (1986), they used strategies that were not coherent as they worked with students in literacy groupings, but then expected all children to complete the same independent worksheets. During independent work, they resorted to treating all students the same. Additionally, in one room, students were expected to copy from the board, rather than compose their own writing. The first grade teachers recognized the importance of phonological awareness and phonics knowledge for first graders (Hiebert et al., 1997; National Reading Panel, 2000), but for the most part they did not balance this more skill-based knowledge with a focus on comprehension, vocabulary, and writing. Children received a limited, low-level engagement with literacy. A more balanced approach to reading and writing would have been more aligned with the research recommendations of Purcell-Gates et al. (1995), Fillmore (1997), and Pressley et al. (2001). However, these teachers did incorporate several elements identified by Pressley et al. as exemplary. These included their ability to manage their students, create positive learning environments, match some activities to student competence, and scaffold student learning in small group instruction. These teachers could not really be described as orchestrators of complex teaching and learning (Block et al., 2002). They chose, for what they felt were important reasons, to provide a foundation for reading by ensuring that students could decode. First-Grade Learning. By the end of first grade, all of the children had become beginning readers and writers who could independently read text, write short stories or journal entries, and represent short vowel words (see Table 1). Six children exceeded the reading level expectations of the school (Reading Recovery level 16). One child, Calvin, was at grade level. Six children had Reading Recovery support during the year. However, children like Freddy, who were not proficient with English, did not qualify for this support. I found it perplexing that students who were not proficient in English could not receive Reading Recovery support or any other support. So if a child took extended time developing English, like Freddy, he or she missed the one-time opportunity for additional assistance. Of the group of children receiving Reading Recovery instruction, four (Bonnie, Julio, Maritza, and Sandra)

Page 987

Second Grade is Important

were considered to be reading below grade level at the end of the year. Of the four children who came to first grade with knowledge of the alphabetic principle (Anthony, Eric, Heidee, and Maria), only Anthony ended first grade below grade level. Jaryd and Freddy left kindergarten unable to write their names and clearly at risk. Jaryd ended the year at grade level while Freddy reached a reading level of 12. This was amazing growth for both children, especially Freddy, who spent two months of first grade in Mexico, where he attended school. Despite the great variability in the literacy knowledge that children brought to first grade, they left first grade more convergent at the beginning reader level. Heidee, Josie, and Maria were the only children considered above grade level at the end of the year. All three girls came to school with a home language that was not English. The overall instruction centered on sound/symbol relationships and decoding; the goal of the teachers was to develop beginning readers — children who could successfully decode text at level 16. They accomplished this goal with all but six focal students. Anthony, Bonnie, Freddy, Julio, Maritza, and Sandra were all considered below grade level at the end of the year. With the exception of Anthony, all of these children came to school with Spanish as their home language. Anthony and Freddy were the only children in this group who did not receive Reading Recovery support. Anthony was in the Cullen/Adams room where few children developed into beginning readers without Reading Recovery support (see Barone, 2002, for a descriptive case study of Anthony). By the end of first grade, students are expected to be able to read first-grade texts with accuracy and comprehension, use letter/sound correspondence knowledge to read and write words, and create text for others to read, among other literacy accomplishments (Snow et al., 1998). Although comprehension of text was never a focus of independent reading instruction, the ability to read text and use sound/ symbol knowledge was. At the end of the year, seven focal children moved to second grade with appropriate literacy accomplishments. Five others were learning English as a new language and of this five, four also had Reading Recovery intervention (by February or March, their English was considered sufficient for them to qualify). Even with this intervention in first grade, Bonnie, Julio, Maritza, and Sandra had not reached grade level benchmarks and thus were at greater risk for satisfactory literacy achievement (Clay, 2001; Snow et al., 1998). One child, Anthony, entered first grade with a wealth of literacy knowledge and English as his home language, but he failed to develop this knowledge through his first grade experience. Unfortunately, he also entered second grade at risk in literacy.

Page 988

Journal of Literacy Research

Second-Grade Teaching. Overall, consistent literacy strategies were used in the second grade classrooms. Teachers all used Daily Oral Language (DOL) to help children with grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Children were expected to correct two sentences and then discuss the errors. All teachers read aloud and engaged students in discussion of these books, grouped students for reading based on running record assessment, used leveled readers as well as the basal, had children read independently, had children write journals and stories, and had spelling and handwriting instruction. The spelling instruction was differentiated; typically three spelling lists were used. Teachers used a developmental spelling list for placement (Bear & Barone, 1989) and structured their rooms so that they worked with small groups while the remaining children completed work at their tables or went to center activities in a workshop setting where students collaboratively engaged in multiple activities. The teachers routinely used informational text. They provided their students with Venn diagrams and K-W-L (Ogle, 1986) strategies to help with understanding of these texts. In the Stewart/Harrison room there was a clear focus on word study. Each day children sorted words based on patterns. The words chosen for sorting were determined by the way children represented words in their writing. So, for example, if children confused short vowels, they explicitly studied the short vowel patterns in single-syllable words (Bear et al., 2000). In addition, children wrote stories and created books that were shared in an author’s chair on a daily basis. The teachers also grouped students for daily reading where they read leveled text. The focus moved beyond decoding as the teachers often questioned students about plot or characters. Scott/Ford engaged students in a read aloud daily and tied these readings to the children’s writing. For example, when the teacher read Dear Mr. Henshaw (Cleary, 1983), students talked about journal writing. In addition, Miss Ford shared stories that her fourth graders had written to inspire her students. These teachers utilized a partner sharing practice called Think-Pair-Share when they engaged students in whole group comprehension discussions. The children were encouraged to think with another child before arriving at an answer during whole group discussion. This strategy resulted in many children participating in whole class conversation, most notably ELL students who had never done so in the past (Cummins, 2003). The Stevens/Smith team brought language and vocabulary to the forefront of instruction in their classroom. Their students were encouraged to make connections between their home language and English. Mrs. Smith often told her students, “I learned English in high school. I am impressed with how much you know about

Page 989

Second Grade is Important

spelling and punctuation. It took me to high school to know this.” In addition to an explicit focus on language, the teachers engaged students in conversation about books both during and after whole-group read-aloud sessions and during small group reading (Gutierrez, 2001). To summarize, there was a dramatic difference from previous years in the literacy instruction provided to students in second grade. Teachers employed strategies like K-W-L and Think-Pair-Share that facilitated children’s academic conversation (Beykont, 2002). Reading instruction shifted to a focus on meaning as well as decoding (Hiebert, et al., 1997). Moreover, the children moved beyond narrative text to informational text. In writing instruction, children were expected to write stories and reports. Most of the time, students wrote to their own topics. Their writing folders contained lists of topics that they had generated. From these lists, they chose a topic, brainstormed, and then started a first draft. At other times, the teachers expected students to write information reports. Here students were limited to a prescribed format but were free to choose any topic. They also wrote daily in journals. On most occasions, students chose the topics they wrote about. Teachers generally responded to journals by moving near a student and listening to him or her read an entry. Spelling instruction was tailored to strengths with two to three spelling groups in each classroom studying different letter patterns. Students shared in whole group and very individualized, personalized instruction (Pressley, et al., 2001). Only the second-grade teachers consistently matched the exemplary teaching practices identified by Block et al. (2002). These teachers were “master demonstrators” as they helped children expand on their understandings of reading and writing. Moreover, they made academic conversation the centerpiece of instruction for all students including ELL students (Gutierrez, et al., 1997; Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000). Second-Grade Learning. During second grade teachers relied on more than running records and book levels to determine literacy achievement. They also used writing conferences, evaluation of the responses student wrote, and spelling inventories. At the end of the year, eight focal children were at grade level and beginning to develop fluency in reading and writing. They were able to read and write long vowel, single-syllable words. Three children (Calvin, Jaryd, and Julio) were below grade level and were not fluent readers or writers; they still read and wrote in a word-by-word manner, rather than in phrases. They represented words by correctly supplying the initial and final consonants, but they were confused with short vowels (Bear & Barone, 1998). Two children (Eric and Heidee) were considered to be

Page 990

Journal of Literacy Research

above grade level in reading and writing. They moved beyond leveled text and read chapter books, had no difficulty writing short or long vowel single-syllable words, and were able to write complex reports and stories that included dialogue. Most exciting about this year was the unpredicted literacy growth for students like Bonnie, Maritza, Sandra, Freddy, and Anthony. These children ended first grade below grade level and struggled with simple decoding of text. In addition, they had not explored the meaning implications of text. During second grade, when their literacy curriculum was expanded, they developed decoding as well as comprehension strategies. This result matches the findings of Knapp (1995), where students had higher achievement in classrooms that focused on meaning. However, this result contrasts to the work of Stanovich (1986) and Juel (1988) who found that children who were behind in first grade remained behind.

Across Grade Levels For the two children above grade level in kindergarten through grade 2, Heidee was learning English as a new language and Eric was an English speaker (see Table 3 for an overview of grade-level development). These children were considered successful in literacy each year of the primary grades. They reflect students described by Juel (1988) and Stanovich (1986) in that they continued to build on their success. These children’s parents spent significant time helping them with academic endeavors. Heidee’s parents read to her each night in their home language, and her older brothers and sisters worked with her in English. Eric’s mother was a frequent helper during kindergarten. Later, Eric’s grandmother helped him with school work. Other children like Bonnie had parent support, but unlike Heidee and Eric, it was not as directly connected to the academic expectations of school. Bonnie’s mother was concerned with behavior in school (e.g., following the teacher’s directions). Each day when she left Bonnie at the classroom door she reminded her to “be good and listen to the teacher.” This was important advice, but it did not help Bonnie build literacy knowledge. Of the children at grade level in second grade, Anthony had an interesting journey. He ended kindergarten as a beginning reader and writer, lost this lead in first grade, but was able to move back to grade level in second grade. Bonnie was not at grade level until second grade even with the help of Reading Recovery. Freddy, Maritza, and Sandra were considered below grade level in first grade, but by the end of second grade they accomplished grade-level reading and writing expectations or above. These children were all learning English as a new language. This is a particularly amazing accomplishment for Freddy. He left kindergarten unable to write his name. He left school each year to visit Mexico for two to three months, and without intervention, he achieved at grade level by the end of second grade.

Page 991

Second Grade is Important

However, he was always enrolled in school in Mexico, and his parents had high academic expectations for him. While Josie, Lucero, and Maria left first grade above grade level, they ended second grade at grade level. They did not experience the growth that they had demonstrated in previous years. Certainly they extended their literacy understandings, but they seemed to plateau at their current levels. All of these girls were learning English as a new language. Perhaps, the additional text difficulty and vocabulary contributed to this plateau (Cummins, 2003). Table 3. Grade-Level Benchmarks Kindergarten

First

Second

Below grade level

Bonnie Calvin Freddy Jaryd Josie Julio Lucero Maritza Sandra

Anthony (-) Bonnie Freddy Julio Maritza Sandra

Calvin (-) Jaryd (-) Julio

At grade level

Anthony Maria

Calvin (+) Eric (-) Jaryd (+) Lucero (+)

Anthony (+) Bonnie (+) Freddy (+) Josie (-) Maria (-)

Above grade level

Eric Heidee

Heidee Josie (+) Maria (+)

Eric (+) Heidee Lucero (+) Maritza (+) Sandra (+)

Of the below-grade-level readers, Calvin left first grade at grade level but did not make similar progress in second grade. Julio and Jaryd were consistent in their slow progress and had not achieved grade level performance. They were mid-first grade readers by the end of the second-grade year. These students are worrisome because of their slow yearly progress with no additional literacy instructional support for them outside of their classrooms (Allington & Cunningham, 2002; Juel, 1988). What is noteworthy about this group is that all are boys, two entered school with English as a home language, and one (Calvin) had preschool experience.

Page 992

Journal of Literacy Research

Interestingly, although first grade is often documented as the critical grade for children’s literacy, in this study, second grade took on added importance. Second grade teachers fostered academic discussion around text and engaged students in inferential and critical questions. They were also expected to complete more academically challenging tasks in second grade (Moll & Diaz, 1987). With this widened curriculum, the children flourished with more children at grade level or above in achievement. In kindergarten and first grade, students largely completed worksheets that required single, correct answers. In second grade, children were engaged in conversation about books and topics. They wrote in journals, often without prompts, and they wrote their own stories and reports. This more challenging curriculum, supported with direct teaching of skills as seen in the DOL instruction, resulted in large gains for the students in literacy knowledge and understanding. This supports the research of Block et al. (2002), Fillmore (1997), Gutierrez et al. (1997), Hiebert et al. (1997), the National Reading Panel (2002), Pressley et al. (2001), and Wilkinson and Silliman (2000), among others.

Two Cases: Sandra and Julio The children who were selected for a more in-depth examination came to kindergarten with Spanish as a home language and no preschool experience. Their learning trajectories from kindergarten through second grade varied considerably, with Julio always considered below grade level and Sandra moving from below grade level to above in second grade. For both children, the instruction provided in second grade made a huge difference in their literacy knowledge and understanding. Following are the stories of their school experiences from kindergarten to the end of grade two.

Coming to Know Sandra I met Sandra for the first time when her mother brought her to the kindergarten screening. Her mother told me that Sandra “pretends to read at home. She likes to draw pictures and watch television. She doesn’t write yet but she knows the alphabet. She still doesn’t understand everything in English. She is shy.” Following my conversation with Sandra’s mother, I watched Sandra interact with her teacher during a readiness assessment. Sandra scored a 19 (of 36) on this assessment (Early Screening Inventory — Revised, Meisels, 1997) that was administered to her totally in English. (Most kindergarten children in this school scored in the 20s on this assessment.) This score resulted in her being flagged for rescreening later in the year. One of the expectations for this assessment was that she could build with blocks following specific directions from the teacher. Surprisingly, she was able to do this. When asked what she would do with an orange ball, green block, and yellow car, she replied to each, “Play with them.” While this response made sense, it was not

Page 993

Second Grade is Important

the one expected in the scoring manual. However, as I watched Sandra interact with her teacher, it became obvious that Sandra had an understanding of the questions and directions in English. She was also able to respond appropriately, though not correctly according to the manual, to the questions posed by her teacher. Time for Kindergarten. Sandra was in the kindergarten with two teachers (Martin/ George) along with approximately 18 to 20 other children in her class. The majority of the children in her class came to school with a home language of Spanish. The kindergarten room was small as it had been one room that was now divided into two. Noise from the neighboring classroom regularly intruded into the room. Both classes shared bathrooms and sinks that contributed to additional movement and noise. Mrs. George and Mrs. Martin used most of their space for round tables for the children. A small library space held a few bookshelves with materials like puzzles, games, paper, and crayons. Mrs. George put Spanish and English words on the board for the numbers and months of the year. She was one of the few teachers who explicitly valued the children’s home language in school and made connections between Spanish and English. During opening exercises she asked children to help her with a Spanish word. The children always giggled as they helped their teacher learn Spanish. The teachers worked with all students as a whole group. Children were responsible for completing all independent activities by the end of the week. Most activities centered on skills such as the alphabet, name writing, and numbers. I never observed any instruction that was targeted to individual students. Moreover, there were no adjustments for students who were learning English as a new language; all children were treated as though their home language was English. When I first observed Sandra in September, she was busy creating a selfportrait. She carefully drew her picture (see Figure 1). It was obvious that she had had many opportunities to draw. She represented herself with a bright smile complete with teeth and eyelashes. After the picture was complete, Sandra joined with the other children in her class to listen to a story. She carefully maneuvered herself to sit next to her best friend, Lucero. The two girls Figure 1. Sandra’s self-portrait.

Page 994

Journal of Literacy Research

watched the teacher as she read a book about farm animals. After the book was finished, her teacher asked, “Who thinks they can learn how to read this book?” Sandra nodded her head yes. The children never interacted with this book again. When I asked Sandra’s teacher about how she was doing she replied, “Great.” She did not elaborate on what “great” meant. On subsequent visits, I noted that Sandra liked to help the teacher. In November, she was in charge of the homework chart. Later, when the teacher was working with all of the students, Sandra made sure that she was sitting right at her feet. As the teacher asked questions about the calendar, Sandra always had her hand up. When the teacher asked what month it was, Sandra replied, “1997.” The teacher told her that “that is the year” and she moved on to another child. After calendar work, the teacher talked to the children about what they might be thankful for at Thanksgiving. Each child was expected to respond. When it was Sandra’s turn, she just sat quietly. As other children responded, Sandra lost interest and played with her hair and small things that were on the floor. Later in the day, after chatting with the aide in Spanish, Sandra told her teacher that she was “thankful for her cousin Jose.” Throughout kindergarten, Sandra always sat near the teacher during whole class instruction. As the year progressed, she was more reluctant to respond to the teacher’s questions. On some days, she chose to play with Lucero’s hair rather than listen to instruction. However, when Sandra was in a small group completing assignments, she engaged in a Spanish conversation with Lucero the entire time. Periodically, the girls talked about a letter on a worksheet in English but then they went back to their Spanish conversation. At the end of the year, Sandra recognized most letter names, but she was not able to identify their sounds. Although she also looked at books and sometimes identified the illustrations, she did not retell a book either in an oral or book language tradition (Hiebert et al., 1997; Pressley et al., 2001; Sulzby, 1985). She entered first grade preferring to communicate in Spanish and with little demonstrated phonics knowledge. She was also hesitant to talk about books and did not participate in the few conversations centered on meaning of stories that her teachers offered (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000). She had experienced few opportunities to engage in writing. Considering the research (Snow et al., 1998), it was hard to be optimistic about the reading and writing future for Sandra as she left kindergarten. Entering First Grade. Sandra entered the combined first and second grade classroom of Mrs. Kirby and Mrs. Mears. About the only similarity to kindergarten was that the children sat at tables. For the majority of the day, these teachers taught to

Page 995

Second Grade is Important

small groups of children based on need. They had six reading groups that they met with each day. In these groups, the children read leveled text, and the teachers often engaged students in running record assessment to determine growth in reading. For most reading group instruction the teachers focused on oral reading accuracy, rather than meaning. Beyond the reading groups, the teachers used a word wall, independent reading, centers, language experience activities, journals, interactive writing, among other strategies to support reading and writing development. The children in this room also read with fifth-grade buddies once a week. During this time they read to the older student and the older student read to them. When I first observed Sandra, she was busy reading the wall. She read a dictation that was in the room during center time. This is what she read: Our First Day of School We decorated our frogs. We made rules for our class. We made puppets. We made a poem. When she read she was unable to match the words with her reading (Morris, 1993). She had not yet developed a concept of word in print and was not yet a beginning reader. She swept her hand under each line as she read. Then she showed me her journal. The majority of her early entries were words copied from the board or alphabet practice. Figure 2 shows an early journal sample that exemplifies her emphasis on drawing, not writing. During whole group instruction, Sandra continued a pat tern of behavior from kindergarten of sitting near a friend and not contributing to the academic conversation. She was never Figure 2. Sandra’s early journal writing. disruptive and responded if

Page 996

Journal of Literacy Research

directly called on by the teacher. On this day, the teacher asked her to come up and point to the words as the children read the nursery rhyme, “Hickory, Dickory, Dock.” She pointed to the words with the teacher’s help. When they finished the rhyme, the teacher asked, “Have you heard this before?” Sandra replied, “No.” Following the reading, the teacher engaged the children in discussion of the rhyme. They spent time talking about what they did at various times of the day, then they were asked to find the word the. Several children went to the rhyme and pointed it out. For independent work, the children completed their own copy of the rhyme. Unlike kindergarten, the children practiced reading this rhyme in their reading group and other occasions before taking it home (Block et al., 2002). By the middle of the year, I noted that Sandra chose to write messages in her journal. The teachers moved among the children as they wrote in their journals each morning and provided support when it was requested. As Mrs. Kirby kneeled close to Sandra, Sandra read “I told my mom.” Mrs. Kirby replied, “I am impressed that you know how to write all those words.” She left and Sandra continued writing one word at a time to complete her message. Mrs. Kirby was masterful in her ability to encourage and support the students in her class (Block et al., 2002). Sandra stopped writing to talk to a nearby student in Spanish. Following this writing, Sandra joined a group led by a bilingual aide. They read through the entire play, Little Red Riding Hood and then read it with each child playing a part. Sandra was easily able to read, “Little Red Riding Hood left the path to pick a flower.” Later she had trouble decoding the words thought and takes. The aide helped with these words, and the children reread the play to build fluency. Mrs. Kirby reported that “Sandra is more outgoing. She is a beginning reader and is one of the top students in the first grade.” By mid-year, it appeared that Sandra had made phenomenal growth in literacy. She was reading predictable text and had developed sound/symbol knowledge that was evident in her reading and writing. When I returned to observe Sandra in January, I learned that she had left for six weeks on a visit to Mexico and was not expected back until sometime in February. In February, I observed that Sandra went to the word wall several times to find words for her journal entry. Spelling words correctly was now important to Sandra. When done, she raised her hand for the teacher to come over and read her writing. The teacher did and then wrote a response, Sandra read the response and chatted to her teacher about why she liked the members of her family (see Figure 3). During reading group, she read a predictable text about big and little animals. After all the children chorally read the book, the teacher asked them to find specific words. First they found the word cake, then they hunted for is. While some children were unable to find the words, Sandra said that she “found it twice.”

Page 997

Second Grade is Important

Figure 3. Sandra’s journal writing in first grade.

Page 998

Journal of Literacy Research

When I visited in March, I learned that Sandra would be going to Reading Recovery. I asked the teacher about this as I had not previously heard that she was concerned about Sandra’s literacy development. She said that, “Sandra is not working to her potential. I feel that the time in Mexico slowed her down. So she needs this support.” As I watched Sandra write on this day, I noted that she often erased to correct her writing. When I read her entry, it was very similar to the one in Figure 3. Following is what she wrote: I like my mom and I like my dad and I like my brother and I like Laura and I like Kenia because there nis to me. Clearly, Sandra responded to her teacher’s suggestions by including a rationale for her feelings when she added “There nis to me” to explain her liking them. At the end of the year, Sandra had not reached grade level even with Reading Recovery support. Teachers used the level of 16 to determine end of the year achievement for first grade and Sandra was still reading texts at level 14. However, she had grown in her understandings of literacy during this year. She could read predictable text independently (Bear & Barone, 1998). She had learned to communicate messages in writing, and she had learned how to represent words by using initial and final consonants and attempting to represent vowels. In Figure 4, she drew another self-portrait and wrote that she liked to do centers. She also spelled words that I requested. Her spelling indicated that she still confused short vowels as seen in her writing of ship as sep and bump as bap. However in words that were more familiar to her like big, cat, and ten, she had no difficulty. At the end of first grade and Figure 4. Sandra’s end of first grade self-portrait, with three months of Reading Recovery support in addition her writing, and spelling.

Page 999

Second Grade is Important

to her classroom instruction, Sandra had still not reached grade-level benchmarks. Moreover, she was still quiet and reticent to contribute to academic conversations, and she preferred to chat with her friends in Spanish. The Second Grade Experience. Sandra again entered a classroom taught by a team of teachers. Her teachers, Mrs. Stevens and Miss Smith, talked about their students at the beginning of the year with each one contributing ideas. Following is their combined statement: We focus on language and the importance of learning a second language. We tell these students that we are impressed with how much they know about spelling and punctuation. We have great kids. Only four are not at grade level. We think Reading Recovery helped. Most of the children exit at grade level in first grade, but it takes a month and a half to get them back. Last year, we only had four at grade level. What a difference! We focus on content and bring in many informational books. We are also working in an after school reading program to help other second graders learn to read. These teachers were the first to mention the focus on language and informational text. They made positive comments about the students in their class. Their daily routine included basal reading, centers and small group work, and read alouds. They organized their students into six reading groups that the teachers met each day. They typically used the following activities and strategies with their students: computer games, library for independent reading, multiple spelling lists based on children’s knowledge, writing, interactive writing, content reading strategies like Venn diagrams, journals with topics chosen by children, multiple field trips, and readers’ theatre. They constantly supported their students in making connections between the curriculum and their personal lives. Each time I visited, I heard the teachers say to their students, “In order to learn we have to make mistakes. Mistakes are not bad,” or “You are all so smart, I know that you are going to love learning in college.” Statements like these constantly reminded the students that learning was important and that these teachers had high expectations for each of them (Block et al., 2002). When I visited Sandra for the first time in second grade, it happened to be the day that a hot air balloon landed in the playground. Prior to viewing the balloon, the teacher told the students, “We are going to go out and see the balloon so that you will have more ideas of what to write about.” Sandra’s writing is shared in Figure 5. At the top of the page she wrote a DOL sentence. While many teachers in the school did similar activities, these were the only teachers to personalize

Page 1000

Journal of Literacy Research

the message by including students’ names. Following this, the children did a math problem, and then wrote a journal entry. In this entry, Sandra wrote about the other balloons that she had recently seen. She wrote about her favorite “the teak” [the teakettle]. While not all of her words are decodable, it was clear that she liked balloons shaped like animals. I noticed immediately that her writing was more extensive than it had been in first grade and she took chances with challenging words like favorite.

Figure 5. Sandra’s journal in the beginning of second grade.

By November, her teachers indicated that she was at grade level (Level 18) in reading, and they had placed her in a middle reading group. They also noted that Sandra had not wanted to come to school at the beginning of the year, preferring to stay home with her younger brother. Sandra’s teachers talked to her about this and when one of her teachers had to miss school, Sandra wrote a note to her telling

Page 1001

Second Grade is Important

her how much she missed her and how happy she was about school (see Figure 6). Her teachers also said: Sandra loves to play language games with Spanish. She is language savvy. For example, she knows that pear in English is the same as the word for dog in Spanish. She enjoys this word play with another girl in the class. She is an angel. She works hard. She went from reading at level 8 to 18 in just a few months. And her comprehension is good too — 93%.

Figure 6. Letter written to Sandra’s teacher.

Her reading achievement grew quickly, and by February she was reading books at level 22. She ended second grade at level 28, which placed her significantly above grade level. Her writing became much more detailed as the year went on as well. She conversed easily in her journal and learned to plan before she wrote stories and reports. And reading became an important topic in her journal: My family likes the way I read all day to them. The story I like to read to them is Green Eggs and Ham. When I brock [broke] my hand they sometimes

Page 1002

Journal of Literacy Research

came to read to me at night and when they were reading to me I fell asleep. And then they looked at me and they saw that I was asleep. And they covered me and gave me a kiss. (Spelling and punctuation as she wrote it.) Her journal writing also demonstrated her ability to represent words. In Figure 7, her end of the year word knowledge was recorded on a developmental spelling inventory. It is clear that she now understood representations for short and long vowels. Interestingly, she still did not represent the preconsonantal nasal m in the word bump. At the end of the year, I asked Sandra about how she learned to read and what she learned in the second grade. She said: One time my mom was telling me a story and then she wrote it on a paper and she told me to read it. I tried my best and I got all the words right. It was about a wolf who ate a little girl in the woods. In second grade, I learned about turtles and how to count by threes. And I learned some words that I didn’t know like responsible and humble. Sandra had parents who helped her with reading and writing, was persistent in her learning, and was metacognitive about her learning. She also began to converse in both English and Spanish and to note the similarities in both languages (Gutierrez et al., 1997). Figure 7. Sandra’s end of the year spelling.

Final Thoughts. Sandra was certainly a child whose literacy development in kindergarten and first grade was worrisome. She left kindergarten with little demonstrated knowledge of phonemic awareness or the ability to retell stories. In first grade, she started the year strong but then hit a plateau in the middle of the year and received Reading Recovery support. Even with this support, she ended the year below grade level as determined by school benchmarks. Through both years she hesitantly communicated with her teachers in English even though she understood

Page 1003

Second Grade is Important

them and could respond. And all of her extended conversations with her friends were in Spanish. Second grade became the real turning point for Sandra. In her classroom, her teachers valued her home language and had high expectations for all students (Corbett, Wilson, & Williams, 2002). As Flores-Gonzalez (2002) notes, she became a “school kid” (p. ix) because of her relationships with her teachers. These attitudes and the expansion of the literacy curriculum to include a focus on meaning, writing, and informational text made a difference in Sandra’s literacy development.

Coming to Know Julio As with Sandra, I met Julio for the first time during the assessment screening just before kindergarten began. I was not able to communicate with his mother in English, and so a bilingual aide asked her the questions that I posed. When asked about at-home literacy, the aide replied, “They do not read at home. Julio does not know much English.” I then watched Julio as he engaged with his teacher in the assessment. Of all the children in the study, only Julio refused to participate in the screening. The only thing that he did was hop and skip when the teacher showed him what she wanted him to do. He did not receive a score on the readiness assessment. Time for Kindergarten. Julio entered Mrs. Harter’s kindergarten. Like Sandra’s class, this kindergarten class had between 18 to 20 students throughout the year. Mrs. Harter started her day by having the children look at books on the rug. Following this, she read to the children or engaged in phonics or phonemic awareness activities. On many days the children sang alphabet songs (including sounds) with a record. After this whole group time, the children worked in small groups on letter, number, and take-home book activities. Frequently, the children worked in an alphabet journal where they copied a letter and pictures and words that the teacher put on the board that began with that letter. During one month, Mrs. Harter met with each child daily and recorded a word that they wanted to learn. She wrote the word, and the child read it to her and then to other children in the room. While the children loved reading their words, she found the management of this activity stressing and discontinued it. Mrs. Harter often talked about her frustration in working with children who were still learning English. She wanted to engage them in more discussions, but she only saw faces looking at her, “It is frustrating to me. I want them to talk but they don’t know how. So now I just don’t leave much time to talk about books.” She experienced this frustration throughout the year whenever she tried language-rich activities like book discussions.

Page 1004

Journal of Literacy Research

I visited Julio early in September and watched as he looked through multiple books. The aide went to him and told him in Spanish to look at one book at a time. He still continued to stack the books, peek in one and then another. Then the teacher had the children put their books away based on a color code assigned to each child, a process that Julio did not understand. Later in the year similar behavior occurred when the teacher used initial consonants of children’s names as the signal to put books away. Julio did not understand the connection between the letter and the beginning consonant in his name; it remained a guessing game for him. As I watched him on this visit, it was clear that he wanted to participate. His hand was always up and he sat toward the front of the group. Unfortunately, when the children were in whole-group activities for an extended time, Julio quickly disengaged and left to go to the bathroom and wash his hands. This was a pattern that I observed throughout his kindergarten experience. In fact, as the year progressed, he spent most of whole group time in the bathroom or at the sink. Following whole group time, Julio went to a table to work on a phonics sheet and to draw a self-portrait. He colored the letter “a” on a phonics sheet but not the pictures that began with an a sound. His self-portrait (see Figure 8) is still very much a tadpole person more typical of younger children (Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984). In March, I asked Julio to read Chicka, Chicka, Boom, Boom (Martin, 1989) to me. He carefully turned each page as he sang the alphabet song for each page. I asked him to point out specific letters, but he was unable to do this. He sometimes pointed to a letter, not the one I requested, or he pointed to the words on the page. Later in the day, during a whole class session, the teacher asked the children to provide words that started with g like in the word give. Julio was quick to put up his hand and offer “Julio” and “teacher.” Throughout the year, Julio consistently picked Chicka, Chicka, Boom, Boom to look through. It seemed like it was his book because no other child selected it. He learned to write his name easily, but he never learned to recognize the maFigure 8. Julio’s self-portrait in jority of letters in the alphabet or in his name. He kindergarten. was only consistent with four letters: c, j, p, and

Page 1005

Second Grade is Important

m. Additionally, Julio missed the majority of whole-class instruction throughout the year as he always left the group to go to the bathroom or get a drink. He conversed predominantly in Spanish. In fact, he waited for the bilingual aide to interpret for him when the teacher gave directions to the class. He and one other boy were the only ones in the room to rely on the bilingual aide as a translator throughout the entire year. Julio left kindergarten with little knowledge of the alphabet, no demonstrated phonological sensitivity, and little knowledge of books. This was certainly not a strong foundation for first grade reading and writing (Snow et al., 1998). Entering First Grade. Julio entered the team-taught first grade class of Messina/ Denton, whose instruction was similar to the other first grade teams. They provided whole group and small group instruction in literacy each day. These teachers had between four and six groups throughout the year. In addition, they had a technology grant that allowed each student to engage in curriculum activities on the computer daily. Students read stories, wrote stories, or engaged in more skill-based instruction on the computer. Unlike previous teachers, Mrs. Messina was bilingual and used Spanish to help students understand expectations and the curriculum. When I first saw Julio in first grade, he was working on color words with his teacher. He identified the words green and red, but had no idea of the others. Next, he moved to a reading center. Here I observed him read a book to a child in Spanish. It was a number book and on each page, he counted in Spanish. Then when recess came, Julio had to stay in the room for not doing his homework and for misbehaving. For his homework, he was expected to practice the sound of the letter z and color pictures that began with that letter. Because he had not yet developed sound/symbol awareness, he was unable to do such work. By mid-year, Julio was still working on the alphabet and early levels of predictable text. His teacher told me in January that “he knows the names of letters and maybe sounds. He has made tremendous growth and he can read level 5 books now. I am thinking that he might have to be retained in first grade.” In February her outlook changed. He is doing well. He has moved up in a reading group. He can sound out words. He knows consonants, blends, and vowel sounds. His problem is with meaning. He doesn’t know many concepts — like he didn’t know what snow was.

Page 1006

Journal of Literacy Research

His difficulty with meaning did show up in much of his reading. For example, in November he read three books to me that he had read several times before. His goal was to read the books as fast as he could, guessing at many of the words. He never attempted to analyze or sound out a word, and he kept reading even when the word he substituted did not make sense. When I observed him in reading group, I confirmed that he read not for meaning but simply to get done. One day his group read a version of The Lady with the Alligator Purse. His teacher asked, “ What is a lady?” Julio responded, “a girl.” Then his teacher asked, “What is nonsense?” He did not respond. Then the teacher moved to a discussion about a baby eating soap and water. When Julio did not attend, he was told to “Stop moving around and look at what we are doing.” Then they moved on to a book about a bear’s present. Julio read, “We will get a toy for little teddy.” The teacher asked, “What is the first letter (in the word bear that he read as teddy)?” Julio answered, “Baby bear.” When he read a book about lions he called them kittens. In this book, the teacher wanted him to correctly read only. The teacher asked, “What is the first letter?” He replied, “I don’t know.” These interactions in reading group were typical for Julio. Although his ability to communicate orally in English never reached a level considered sufficient by his teachers for entry into Reading Recovery, the principal worked with him each day using Reading Recovery strategies from March to the end of the first grade year. Beginning in March, the teacher began each day by having children write words that she dictated. Eventually, students took over this process by telling the other students what words to write. The teacher created a stack of words that were used for dictation. One day, I observed as the children were asked to write dog, zoo, scout, boo, put, run, quiet, reading, play, and smile. Although, there was no pattern in these words to help the children, Julio tried his best. He amazed me in that he had a small notebook where he wrote any word that caused him trouble. I asked him how he used the notebook, and he said, “I write the words and I practice them at home.” During recess, I asked Julio to draw and write about himself and then to spell some words for me. His drawing was a bit more developed than the one he had produced in kindergarten. He drew a very big sad face. His stepfather was very much on his mind as he wrote about playing with him. Julio represented initial consonants, final consonants, and short vowels in the majority of his words. He wrote 14 words that he knew in addition to the five words I asked him to write (see Figure 9). Julio was not retained in first grade, but he did not reach the grade level benchmarks even with the additional support. He was able to read predictable text at

Page 1007

Second Grade is Important

level 12 with help from his teachers. At the end of the year, his teachers described him as: A very happy little boy. He had a difficult time with the English language and therefore struggles with reading comprehension. He has progressed nicely in the first grade. He is well liked by his peers and staff members.

Figure 9. Julio’s self-portrait, writing, and spelling at the end of first grade.

Page 1008

Journal of Literacy Research

He was just developing as a beginning reader at the end of the year (Bear & Barone, 1998). I was not optimistic about his future success as a reader and writer. Second grade offered no opportunities for additional one-on-one support. The Second-Grade Experience. Julio entered second grade in the room of Mrs. Stevens and Miss Smith. Their literacy curriculum was described in the section on Sandra. In September, Julio worked on short a words. He volunteered the word snack for the list that was being created and spelled it correctly. When the group was dismissed, he chatted in Spanish with his friends. Shortly after returning to his desk, he went outside to look at a hot air balloon and then returned to write about it. His writing (see Figure 10) described a previous trip with his mother where he observed balloons and in particular a balloon shaped like a pig. This example demonstrated his ability to convey a message in writing and his ability to represent words. Although he copied balloon, he represented all of the phonemes in other words and distinguished between Figure 10. Julio’s journal at the beginning of sec- using a single e in me and ond grade. two e’s in see. Later in the day, I overheard him talk to his teacher about wanting to be a photographer when he grew up. He said, “I want to take pictures of my house.” Then he tried to say a word but was unable to think of the English equivalent. He went to another student who spoke Spanish and asked him for the word. He returned and continued the conversation with his teachers about being a photographer. The teacher stopped the class activity to share the strategy that Julio used to facilitate communication. She congratulated him on using others to help with translation to support meaning making. This was the first occasion where I observed Julio being praised in front of his classmates.

Page 1009

Second Grade is Important

The curriculum became more complex in second grade as children were expected to write stories and reports and read informational text. Julio struggled with writing throughout the year. For example, he wrote about a cat saying “boo” and drew one picture to help with his story (see Figure 11). He wrote a bit about a cat saying boo who turned into a pumpkin. Then he started to write about his sister. He did not attempt to connect his sister with his story about the cat. Whenever Julio was asked to write, he put his head down and labored over every word and sentence. Little of his writing extended beyond a sentence or two, and it was rarely cohesive.

Figure 11. Julio’s story.

Page 1010

Journal of Literacy Research

By the end of the year, Julio had reached level 14 in reading. He could decode text at higher levels but struggled with meaning. This was particularly problematic when the book dealt with a topic beyond his personal experience. In addition, even with explicit teaching of vowel patterns all year, he still confused short and long vowels (see Figure 12). He substituted an o for u in bump and an i for e in when. However, he did represent long vowel patterns in drive and train. When I asked Julio how he had learned to read, he said “by reading books.” This made sense, for while other children said they learned by sounding out words, this was not a strategy that Julio used, even though it dominated instruction. He read by memorizing the text and guessing the words he did not know or remember. He preferred to process words as individual icons, which further limited his ability to comprehend text (Bates et al., 1998).

Figure 12. Julio’s writing and spelling at the end of second grade.

Page 1011

Second Grade is Important

His teachers thought that he had “lots of potential.” They noted that he “was bright and impulsive. His impulsivity takes away from his learning. He has his hand up to contribute before he thinks about what he is going to say.” They also noted that he did progress somewhat in second grade, moving from level 10 to 14. They indicated that this minimal growth was due to “his not being careful. Everything is a race for him. He doesn’t stop to listen.” They also noted “Julio knows more than he shows when he is assessed or tested. He seems to freeze in those situations.” Final Thoughts. Julio is one of the few target children to remain below grade level expectations throughout his time in the primary grades. There are many reasons for this result. During kindergarten, he excused himself from instruction that did not make sense to him. He missed almost all of the direct instruction provided by the teacher. And his teacher never nudged him to join in this instruction. At first her language was not familiar to him and this resulted in his tuning out of instruction. As he continued to withdraw, the instruction never became familiar to him. This tuning-out behavior occurred even when his teachers explicitly made connections between his home language and the language of the school as seen most frequently during second grade. His first-grade teachers incorrectly assumed that he knew sound/symbol relationships and as a result much of his early work was meaningless to him. He simply guessed as he completed worksheets. None of his teachers was able to get him to focus on the meaning aspects of reading; his goal was always to read to the end as quickly as he could. Writing was another area that proved difficult. In kindergarten and grade one, he had few opportunities to write more than simple answers or responses. In second grade, this expectation changed, but Julio rarely engaged in writing. He often put his head down and avoided writing unless an adult was next to him. Julio viewed writing as difficult and not something he enjoyed or in which he saw value. However, he did learn about meaning in reading and writing. Although Julio still preferred to guess at unknown words and get to the end of reading, he now went back to text when it did not make sense. His second grade teachers were able to get him to consider meaning when he read and wrote, at least when they sat beside him. Unfortunately, Julio’s progress matched the children in the reports of Alexander et al. (1997), Juel (1988), and Stanovich (1986) in that once behind, he stayed behind.

Discussion and Conclusion Perhaps, the most obvious discovery when considering the primary literacy curriculum for the children in this study was the lack of connection to home language or experiences. In a school where the majority of children enter without preschool

Page 1012

Journal of Literacy Research

experience and a home language other than English, the lack of connection certainly did not help students in bridging their home and school experiences as they moved into literacy (Gutierrez et al., 1997; Moll & Diaz, 1987; Nieto, 1999) It was disappointing to see children who were learning English not have their home language and culture valued in any explicit or implicit way in the majority of classroom experiences. Additionally, there were no curricular or instructional adjustments made for these children. With no additional support, they were expected to match the learning of children who entered the school with English as their home language (Allington & Cunningham, 2002). Coupled with this lack of acknowledgement of students’ language and culture was the distance from children exhibited primarily by two of the kindergarten teachers. Throughout the entire year, students were treated as a group, rather than as individuals. Their teachers, through their physical placement at their desks or at only one center, fostered this distancing and lack of personal connection to students which was particularly troubling since this was the first school experience for the majority of children. Physical and emotional connection to students has been documented as one of the primary avenues to support student growth (Gordon, 1999); however, this did not occur in the kindergartens I observed. Thankfully for these children, teachers in first and second grades built personal connections with them. In addition, they recognized that individual students have varying strengths and needs, and they grouped students to maximize their learning. Following from this lack of recognition or respect for the home language and culture and lack of personal connection was teachers’ minimal understanding as to how to support the literacy learning of ELL students. For example, teachers in kindergarten and first grade infrequently returned to stories that had been read to further develop understanding (Block et al., 2002). In kindergarten, each reading event signaled a new book that infrequently was surrounded by discussion. Children remained bystanders; they observed but did not participate in academic conversations. In first grade, students did see text repeatedly when they read their leveled books in small groups. However, teachers focused on decoding, so if students learned about constructing meaning, it was not an explicit process (PurcellGates et al., 1995). In professional development, teachers learned about reading strategies without a focus on how to adapt them for ELL students. As a result, the teachers experienced frustration when their students, for example, did not engage in book discussions or were unwilling to write about the books they read. When this occurred with any regularity, the teachers abandoned the new strategies and returned to more

Page 1013

Second Grade is Important

constrained practices such as completing worksheets. Therefore, even in schools with systematic professional development in literacy, carryover to classrooms is not guaranteed. In fact, as is shown in this case, if the professional development does not target students enrolled in the school, especially ELL students, the new strategies are quickly discarded. As schools contemplate professional development in literacy, it is important to connect these professional conversations to the needs of students, the ELL students particularly, especially when this professional development is occurring in urban schools. The results of this study showed no clear pattern of literacy development for children learning English as a new language. Eight children from this group were at or above grade level by the end of second grade. Only one child learning English as a new language, Julio, was below grade level. An interesting and perhaps discouraging result is that two students (Calvin and Jaryd) were considered behind at the end of second grade and both of these boys entered kindergarten with English as a home language. Home language did not serve as a predictor of end of secondgrade achievement in reading for them. Perhaps most important to this study is the observation that so many of the children (10/13) were at or above grade level in literacy by the end of second grade. After the emphasis on letter knowledge in kindergarten and phonics in first grade, the teachers in second grade utilized a more balanced approach to literacy that included shared, guided, and independent reading. This more complex curriculum enriched students’ literacy learning (Fillmore, 1997; Moll & Diaz, 1997; Pressley et al., 2001). Further, the pattern of literacy growth was varied among the children, which is a critically important discovery. It allows teachers and schools to be more optimistic and persistent in teaching struggling readers. Schools and teachers can change achievement patterns of students in reading, even after first grade. Only Julio consistently remained behind in literacy development. Other children’s literacy trajectories were more variable. This result does not support the findings of other studies that children who were behind stayed behind (Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986). These children demonstrated the wide variability in literacy achievement that can occur during the primary grades. This result is much more powerful and optimistic than previously reported and once again demonstrates the ability of exemplary teachers to make a difference in the literacy lives of students (Pressley et al., 2001). Perhaps the most interesting part of this study was the different instructional paradigm enacted in second grade. All teachers in the school participated in the same

Page 1014

Journal of Literacy Research

literacy professional development. However, only second grade teachers valued the language richness of their students. They found ways to support students’ oral and written conversations. They valued students helping each other with translation and other academic expectations. They created rooms that functioned as workshops where formal and informal teaching occurred all day long, similar to the classrooms described by Purcell-Gates et al. (1995). And as seen in the work of Purcell-Gates and her colleagues, these classrooms resulted in children having deeper and more sophisticated understandings of reading and writing. Moreover this happened in a second grade where students like Julio had previously experienced two years of schooling that made no sense to him. Finally, many of these children (six) regressed significantly during the summer break. This was especially vivid in Calvin who regressed 10 reading levels over a summer. It is important for schools to find ways to support children over long summer breaks. This study identified the variability in literacy achievement in the primary grades. It demonstrated the learning that was accomplished in a balanced literacy approach. And unfortunately, it documented some teachers’ inattention to students’ primary language. It also moved beyond the seemingly fixed assumption that once a child is below grade level, he or she can rarely make up lost ground. This study documented the complexity of teaching and meeting the needs of ELL children as readers and writers. For most children, achievement was not a linear trajectory. Clearly, teachers can alter these patterns. This was certainly seen in the second grade where teachers made the curriculum more complex, challenging, and successful.

References Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Horsey, C. (1997). From first grade forward: Early foundations of high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 70, 87-107. Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (2002). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Allington, R., & Walmsley, S. (Eds.). (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Barone, D. (1999). Resilient children: Stories of poverty, drug exposure, and literacy development. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barone, D. (2002). Learning and teaching at an at-risk school. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 6, 1-42. Baker, S., Kameenui, E., & Stahl, S. (1994). Beginning reading: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 372-391.

Page 1015

Second Grade is Important

Bates, E., Elman, J., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Prisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1998). Innateness and emergentism. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 590-601). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bear, D., & Barone, D. (1998). Developmental literacy: An integrated approach to assessment and instruction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Bear, D., & Barone, D. (1989). Using children’s spelling to group for word study and directed reading in the primary classroom. Reading Psychology, 10, 275-292. Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Beykont, Z. (2002). Introduction. In Z. Beykont (Ed.), The power of culture (pp. vii - xxxvi). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing. Block, C., Oakar, M., & Hurt, N. (2002). The expertise of literacy teachers: A continuum from preschool to grade 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 178-207. Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cleary, B. (1983). Dear Mr. Henshaw. New York: Morrow. Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity. New York: Teachers College Press. Corbett, D., Wilson, B., & Williams, B. (2002). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and fiction. In G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 2-33). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Alternatives to grade retention. The School Administrator [On-line], 55. Available: http://www.aasa.org/SA/aug9801.htm. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Fillmore, L. (1997). Authentic literature in ESL instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids/Street kids. New York: Teachers College Press. Garcia, E. (2000). Bilingual children’s reading. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 813-834). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gordon, G. (1999). Teacher talent and urban schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 304-307. Gutierrez, K. (2001). What’s new in the English language arts: Challenging policies and practices. Language Arts, 78, 564-569. Gutierrez, K., Baquendano-Lopez, P., & Turner, M. (1997). Putting language back into language arts: When the radical middle meets the third space. Language Arts, 74, 368-378. Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Page 1016

Journal of Literacy Research

Hiebert, E., Pearson, P., Taylor, B., Richardson, V., & Paris, S. (1997). Every child a reader. Ann Arbor, MI: CIERA/University of Michigan. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. Knapp, M. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Macias, R., & Kelly, C. (1996). Summary report of the survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services 1994-1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Grants and Contracts. Martin, B., Jr. (1967). Brown bear. New York: Holt. Martin, B., Jr. (1989). Chicka, chicka, boom, boom. New York: Simon and Schuster. Meisels, J. (1997). Early screening inventory-revised. New York: Rebus. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moll, L., & Diaz, S. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18, 300-311. Morris, D. (1993). The relationship between children’s concept of word in text and phoneme awareness in learning to read: A longitudinal study. Research in the Teaching of English. 27, 133-154. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development. Naumes, W., & Naumes, M. (1999). The art and craft of case writing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neufeld, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Early English reading development: Latino English learners in the “low” reading group. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 64-105. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman. Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564-570. Padron, Y., Waxman, H., Brown, A., & Powers, R. (2000). Improving classroom instruction and student learning for resilient and non-resilient English language learners. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., Baker, K., Brooks, G., Cronin, J., Nelson, E., & Woo, D. (2001). A study of effective grade 1 literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 35-58. Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. (1995). Learning written storybook language in school: A comparison of low-SES children in skills-based and whole language classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 659-685. Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Page 1017

Second Grade is Important

Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481. Wilkinson, l., & Silliman, E. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 337-360). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Page 1018