Daily 5 and Common Core

11/13/2012
I just finished reading your blog post about The Daily 5 and Common Core. After following your blog for some time, I have to say, on this I am greatly disappointed. It is clear that you really do not understand The Daily 5, it's framework, or the research behind each of it's components. Daily 5 is not just a list of activities. It is a framework that provides students the time to practice the skills and strategies that they have been taught and are expected to use as dictated by any standards (state or Common Core). It is far superior to the "activities" of centers. Children are reading, writing and doing word work during Daily 5. The difference is that they have a choice instead of being told what to do by a chart. If you also layer CAFE with Daily 5, it all becomes about goals and mastering reading in the best of all worlds. Teachers are provided the opportunity to conference with students to give them the individualized instruction that is so valuable. I think that before you comment on something, you need to read the books and gain a real understanding of what is involved. I am sure that Gail Boushey and Joan Moser would love to have you attend a workshop or visit their classrooms. It is the best teaching I have ever done. None of my students are reading below grade level because I can teach each student at their level while the others are doing meaningful work. Isn't that truly the goal of Common Core, that each student work towards and achieve the benchmarks of their grade level?
You have lost a lot of credibility with me on this one...

11/14/2012
“Although the Daily Five plan bears a superficial resemblance to what I used in the Chicago Public Schools, it differs from my approach in at least one big way: it focuses on teaching activities rather than on learning outcomes. “Reading to someone” or “listening to someone read” are fine activities, so I don’t oppose them, and yet, there are enough pressures on teachers to submerge themselves in the activities at the expense of the outcomes.”

My teachers have been using the Daily Five for many years now and I have had concerns in the past as to the relevance of what students are learning. Fortunately, those conversations I have had with teachers have led them to making sure that what they offer in the Daily Five is relevant. I’m certainly not taking credit for this, but just stating that the professional conversations have helped.

I guess what I’m wondering from reading your blog is why is it such a bad things to have some learning activities included in Daily Five rotations? After all, the Daily Five is used with students from kindergarten through fifth grade and I wonder why there would be harm in finding a balance between having students engaged in activities (which may offer a brain break) and having them engaged in rotations that would offer learning outcomes as well. Perhaps those activities would bring back some creativity in the classroom.

Thanks for your time.

An interview I did with the two sisters. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2012/09/the_daily_5_an_interview_with_the_two_sisters.html?qs=daily+five

11/14/2012
Peter-
You are absolutely correct that a teacher can make this scheme work well for kids, and that there are many good things in it. But fundamentally there is nothing in the DNA of this plan that ensures anything of the kind.

I'm very much a fan of time-based frameworks and have used one of my own for a couple of decades. One problem in this case is that the 5 divisions do not all address issues of equal importance (we've got a mix of those things proven to improve literacy and those things that might). And there is nothing in the basic scheme that focuses teachers on the learning outcomes themselves (though, of course, there is nothing here that would prevent a teacher from imposing her own overlay on this plan--in fact, I'd encourage that).

As a teacher I read to children every day, and would still do so if I were teaching in the primary grades. But the value of this in terms of student reading development is far from proven (though it is absolutely clear that being read to in the preschool years gives a boost to language development). In this case, 20% of the language arts time is spent on that. The word work seems fine to me and very much in line with the research. That seems pretty unequal.

That the students spend 20% of the time reading is very good, except that this could be reading on their own (which has been found to have anything like the learning impact of reading a text with the teacher)... Devil's in the details.

I received an email from a teacher about this plan lauding it because it gives the teacher guidance in what kind of productive work to engage kids in, which frees her up to confer with individual students who may be having problems. I sure like the individual teaching time, but if she is serious that the kids spend most of their activity time on their own, then my concerns are even greater given the research findings indicating the importance of explicit teaching in student learning. She did indicate that she was in an upper income district--all of her students read on grade level or higher--so I'm not very worried about those kids... in many schools the challenges are greater and it is essential to have a more specific emphasis on student learning (rather than student activity) and on explicit instruction rather than students just having an itinerary to work through on their own.

tim

11/14/2012
Hi Tim,

Thank you. It definitely depends on the make-up of the students as well as the expectations and expected outcomes. Your explanation was really helpful.
Peter

7/27/2013

Peter,
I would love to pick your brain and get your feedback. I am struggling with the fact that it is extremely difficult to teach relevance and application with regard to social justice, careers, and multi-cultural education when implementing the Daily 5. What does work and why it works from my research and own experience with the Daily 5 what it offers for paperless word work although I would rather take those activities a step further and have children do wordwork that can double duty such as make a brochure with the words, or complete data activities with the words. it is better use of time but not paperless. The Daily 5 promotes intrinsic motivation and scaffolding with reciprocal teaching during read to someone but only if it follows a guided,direct instructed mini-lesson. If correctly done, it resembles the 4 phases of Zimmermans self-regulating students. In the primary grades, I have found that independent work whatever it may be will only be successful for students at the proficient to advanced stage but if it lacks relevance, application, and intrinsic motivatin, it can be an issue for the proficient students. The advanced students persist regardless but Have been more bothered by group and paird work because they viewed it as a hindrance to their learning. I do feel that application and relevance should be the number 1 goal when teaching any subject but teachers need to focus on inquiry, creativity, curiosity, exploration, and solving . I am concerned that the teachers in my school who are just now taking on the Daily 5 will leave out the other aspects that are important. This is comment comes from someone who has taught using some components of the Daily 5.

8/10/2013
Would you please address the lack of guided reading in the Daily 5 program.

8/10/2013
Have you seen any journal articles on the problems with Daily 5? I would love to see an article by a reading expert on the subject. How much time do you think should be spend on independent literacy tasks after proper and thorough reading and writing instruction is provided? It seems there is only 30-45 minutes left in a day. Would you say that Read to Self is the most important task? One used for many years by highly skilled reading teachers.

9/8/2013
Dr. Shanahan,
Why do you think Daily Five is overwhelmingly being praised by elementary teachers and accepted by school districts across our country? The only thing new in the program seems to be more time on independent literacy tasks. Do you think it is a fad? I would like to know of counties that have rejected the program because it does not allow for enough whole group and guided reading instruction.

What reading workshop books do you recommend?

10/8/2013

I have to agree with the opinions of Dr. Shanahan. I am a parent of a now 2nd grader who did okay/well in kindergarten (PALS score 95/grades were pretty good) but struggled with reading in 1st grade. She was still grasping to learn some basic phonics and language arts principals. Her experienced (16 years) teacher, I believe, was forced to pilot at Daily 5/Cafe 5 program. I volunteered in the classroom during the entire 2.5 reading/LA period once a week. In my opinion & based on my observations with this approach, I believe that it fails miserably when used with students who are just beginning to read in the first grade. The students who struggled with reading --those who were in Title I, PALS tutored, and were like my daughter--doing a little better than these groups but not quite up to par, did not progress and did not benefit from the new 'approach.' There wasn't a whole lot of explicit instruction going on in the classroom. They were expected to be independent learners and simply read and write on their own without any interaction from their teacher (except for one 20 min. period where she met with small groups of 4-5 students). Making choices and being independent sounds great, but young minds that are 6-7 years-old need to be taught, guided, and read WITH in the classroom--not alone or to another child. My child's writing did not improve by more than 10%--no one was paying attention to it! There were about 12 children who began reading at a much higher than first grade level when the year started. These children did seem to improve somewhat--but even these students, I feel, could have excelled further if they were not forced to use the Daily 5 program. I had to get tutoring for my daughter over the summer, and we are struggling now to get her more help. I feel as though she lost an entire year, but she's not underperforming enough to get placed in Title I Reading. She is supposed to get PALS tutoring soon, but that will be with a non-professional whom the school will hire who is not an educator. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to share them. - Karen in Virginia

11/11/2013
I teach first grade...my concern is that Daily 5 / CAFE seems to totally be missing the mark by having students spend a majority of their ELA/Reading time doing work or reading at their independent level. Mini lessons and the minimal amount of time they spend working with the teacher does not seem to meet the needs for young learners (especially struggling learners) to work at the instructional level. Isn't the instructional level where the most learning takes place? Many districts seem to be trading curriculum in for this model, when it is not actually curriculum, but as stated above it is a list of basically self-directed activities.

It also seems to me that much of the 'word work' for beginning readers is just busy work. Students can do much of the word work and still not be able to read the word correctly.

I also can't figure out where the students are supposed to learn the ELA part. A mini-lesson and independent practice is not enough to actually teach students grammar, parts of speech, etc. Am I off-base here? I am not saying this does not have benefits if used in with high quality curriculum...I'm just not sure this is all it's cracked up to be.

11/14/2013
Although your comments contain some valid concerns, there is one major factor missing... proper implementation of Daily 5. I have used Daily 5 in my classroom for six years and have seen amazing results. Daily 5 is a structure and does not contain content. It is designed for the teacher to provide many explicit focus lessons, broken up by "rounds" of Daily 5 where the teacher is meeting with small groups and conferencing with students one on one. This allows children to get instruction based on their individual needs versus lengthy whole group lessons that aim instruction at a majority and hope all get something. Children are working independently on goals specific to their needs during each round of Daily 5.

Unfortunately, many teachers that implement Daily 5 leave out vital components and as a result the students suffer. Some teachers remove choice from the equation, others do one lesson at the beginning and then have children "rotate" through the 5 options, and some do not use the time to meet with students and provide individualized instruction. In these examples, I completely agree that Daily 5 would not be effective. However... if these are the scenarios... it is not Daily 5.

There is not one reading basal that works to meet the needs of all children. If there was, it would be used in every classroom. It is our job as teachers to work to meet the needs of our students, engage them in their learning, and motivate them to do their best. Teachers effectively using Daily 5 and CAFE create classrooms where students are independent, focused, and goal oriented. My students know their strengths as a reader, can tell you what they are working on, and they definitely use their time wisely as they are held accountable for what they are working on. Daily 5 has had a HUGE impact on student achievement in not only my classroom but in many classrooms throughout my district.

11/16/2013
I appreciate your response and do agree that public data is useful. As I stated earlier, Daily 5 had a huge impact in my classroom and many others throughout my district, however not all classrooms use it. So, looking at my district data will not provide the evidence needed. I truly believe a research study on the impact of the correct use of Daily 5 would be extremely beneficial in providing the research backing that is needed.

As an elementary educator, I feel there is a lot of value in testimonials as teaching is a collaborative profession and much of what is shared is shared through testimonial. (This blog and others are great examples of teacher testimonial and sharing.)

Your original post was about Daily 5 and Common Core. Please keep in mind, Daily 5 is a structure and does not hold content. It simply provides the structure, using research based literacy tasks (time to read good fit books, write, manipulate words, listen to reading and read aloud), for teachers to organize their literacy block. If a teacher using Daily 5 says it does not mesh with Common Core, that would fall back on them as it is the teacher's responsibility to make sure the lessons being taught and strategies being practiced, fall in line with their grade level curriculum.

If you observe a Daily 5 classroom that encourages activities over outcomes, then unfortunately you are in a classroom where the teacher does not understand the Daily 5 structure and is implementing it incorrectly. Daily 5 and CAFE, in fact, establish a very high standard for teaching because they require a teacher to analyze student data, set student goals based on individual need, teach explicit and purposeful lessons, and truly know each student as a reader.

You mention "research has repeatedly shown that young children make the greatest learning progress in literacy when they are taught skills like phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension strategies explicitly and thoroughly through systematic lessons." This is what CAFE is all about.

I encourage your readers to read both Daily 5 and CAFE and see them in action before making any decisions as to whether or not it is best for students.

11/16/2017
Your point that it is just a structure is a good one. That is why we are getting such mixed comments here: it is possible within that structure to provide the kinds of instruction that actually make a big difference in kids' learning, but it isn't necessary to. In some cases, Daily 5 supports systematic explicit teaching, but all too often it does not.

11/22/2017

"I do consider public reading achievement scores to be a kind of evidence, however. What school district is this and what year did it begin implementation of Daily Five? With that information we can look at the district reading data from your state for the year before implementation and we can see what has happened as a result."

Would you agree that looking at reading data from a whole district can be misleading? Scores in Lincoln Park differ greatly from Garfield Park. It is hard to look at the data of all of CPS and judge the effectiveness of our reading teachers or reading curriculum or even the structures teachers use. Even within the same school, I find that teachers often do different things based on their level of experience and their own beliefs on how to teach. Some (brand new) teachers at my school strictly use the school provided basal, and the lack of differentiation is frustrating! My former students (now first graders) are "learning" how to blend CVC words- we did that last year in kindergarten! And how to make connections- is that common core?

For our primary grades, our admin only tracks independent reading levels and sight word recognition. What kinds of data would you suggest to keep for primary grades? Our school is no longer doing NWEA in primary grades. And the CPS Quarterly assessments encourage prompting and guidance in kindergarten, so that data isn't exactly reliable nor does it show what students master on their own! And REACH- well, even my students that are in my lower groups can identify characters, setting, problem, and solution. This data doesn't show a year's worth of teaching!

12/18/2013

I feel as if the critical component of the Daily 5 has been left out here... The CAFE. This is the assessment piece that drives instruction. The instruction can be whole group, small flexible groups and are based on strategy instead of ability. When both the Daily 5 and CAFE are used together as laid out by Boushey & Moser, it is a highly successful system. Where I differ from your article is I disagree, Daily 5 and CAFE are not a curriculum, but a framework or methodology. If someone is using CCSS or their own regional curriculum outcomes, those are the main focus. The Daily 5 merely builds student independence to free the teacher to meet with small groups or give individualized instruction/intervention.
Thank you
Crystal

Resource
Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2006). The daily 5. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2009). The CAFE. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publisher

5/10/2014

I tried the daily 5 and cafe with my fifth grade classroom and didn't see growth in student reading. The Cafe activities "mini-lessons" seemed like fluff. The teacher/student interactions we had using the comprehension toolkit was much more effective.

3/11/2015

PHONICS, PHONICS, PHONICS!!!!! Daily 5 misses this concept. ^-( year olds can't focus for long periods of time. They need guidance.

4/25/2105
Daily five is an acceptable structure to meet the needs of students if it is used in a thoughtful manner. This needs to include: 1) practice tasks linked to previos explicit instruction to help students to build fluency to assimilate instruction introduced through mini lessons or small group instruction; 2) include goals that are measurable to show students their efforts are effective in producing improvement in their skills; 3) keep individual needs in mind, whether it be need for guidance and re teaching, level of proximal development, or social interaction. I see limited ability in a child as young as 1st grade being able to be productively self-direct and practice skills that are introduced unless an extensive amount of guided practice is provided to shape accuracy. Most children this age still need extensive support and redirection. The use of guided stations provides increased support to help develop these habits at this early age until the foundational academic skills are adequately established for application in later years when maturity is sufficient to have these high expectations.

4/26/2015
What research shows is that children would be better served by a regimen of explicit teaching of phonological awareness and phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary and language, reading comprehension, and writing. There are a variety of methods that can be used to teach each of these things, but the activities or methods aren't the point, the outcomes are. One can adhere to Daily 5 exactly as it is promoted without doing what is best for kids.

8/15/2015
I am an instructional coach at an elementary school. I am currently working my way through classrooms modeling lessons for teachers on how to set up a modified Daily 5. Teachers already have guided reading groups and centers in place for the Language Arts block, but with the addition of RTI last year, teachers are struggling to give an additional 45 minutes of instruction to intervention students and how to keep the rest of the class occupied in an engaging way that will also help them become better readers. My school does not have interventionist and RTI is given by the classroom teachers while the on level or above level students remain in the room. We just don't have the staff to pull intervention groups and they must be provided by the classroom teachers. We do have a program for gifted students that meets two days a week and our school librarian is pulling the top 10% in each grade for enrichment and additional day of the week. The value I see in Daily 5 is building reading stamina and giving students a substantial amount of time to read, practice the skills they are learning during instructional time, and hopefully discover that they enjoy reading. We are focusing on read to self and read to someone (to work on fluency). I have read the article and I know that you do not see much value in Daily 5 but I am not sure what would be a better alternative. As a side note, my district is heavily on the side of reading levels and reading groups. My district requires guided reading groups and "centers". However, as a new coach I am actively trying to push my teachers to challenge their students while adhering to the district guidelines. I want teachers to instruct the students as close to grade level or beyond as they can and give lots of support. That is different from the position of the district to stay comfortably within instructional level. So do you have any advice or a an alternative I can use?

8/17/2015
Melony--

I'm a big fan of doing some intervention of this type in the classroom, but what you are describing is essentially that the teacher provides teaching to the neediest kids and the others are left to their own devices. They learn as much as they can from just reading on their own. On top of that your district has a high emphasis on particular teaching approaches (guided reading groups, centers) as opposed to trying to teach kids what they need to know to achieve higher levels of performance.

I would organize my day around what I was teaching, rather than around how. For example, teaching fluency is important, and students make the biggest gains in fluency when they are working with grade level texts rather than reading level texts. How about doing fluency work whole class? Yes, you can focus heavily on paired reading (reading to someone), but this needs to be supervised by you. I would suggest that you set 30-45 minutes for this activity (or 15, 15, 15), and you should be listening and coaching at least about 6-10 of those kids each day. I would set another 30-45 minutes for comprehension work. Sometimes, I, too, would do this as guided reading groups, but there would be other days when I would do this whole class and other times when I might fishbowl it (having one group observed by all). There would be another 30-45 minutes on word learning (phonological awareness, phonics, spelling, vocabulary work--depending on ages/levels), and another devoted to writing instruction. That would give your kids 2-3 hours a day of explicit teaching in key elements that have to be learned. The methods and organization would be aimed at accomplishing particular learning goals, not just on using those activities. Then, if I was doing in class interventions they would take an additional 30-60 minutes (probably the lower time), and what I'd have the others doing during this would depend on their ages and levels. good luck.

8/18/2015
Tim,
You mention supervision or direct instruction at all times. If I am doing paired reading that means that I will cover one group for fifteen minutes while the rest is doing what? Paired reading by themselves? What about the interventions? If I am meeting or conferring with a group what is the rest of the students doing? I am really interested on this topic because I have tried Daily 5 but it has never worked. I am not too keen of teaching a vocabulary lesson, for example, but have the kids practice a comprehension skill because that is the rotation they have "chosen" to do.

8/19/2015
In terms of paired reading, I would have the whole class doing that simultaneously--even if there are different books being read by kids from different groups. While they do paired reading, you should be circulating among the children, listening to particular kids reading and bolstering the coaching with your input. You say you do this for 15 minutes, I usually do it for 30 (or two 15 minute periods). In that time, you can typically listen well to 6-10 readers each day, which means you listen to and interact with each individual student 2-3 times per week (and you can listen more to kids who you have concerns about).

When you are meeting with your intervention groups, the other kids need assignments that both keep them engaged and give them some learning (though seatwork rarely does as well as instruction). These assignments should require a lot of reading and writing--for example, having kids reread a text to carry out some kind of analysis (perhaps comparing the last two texts they have read, or comparing a couple of characters in some way).

good luck.

8/23/15
Tim,
Your explanation makes more sense to me now. I believe then that a better approach would be to teach a lesson whole group and have the students do meaningful and rigorous work on what was taught. Then pull students for interventions and coach them as needed. This means that direct instruction is always best. Thanks for your response!

8/25/2015
I've felt this way for a long time now. I am tired of "fluff" and empty activities that simply just keep kids "busy." It almost feels like the new worksheet.

I do find that close reading is a more rigorous approach to teaching reading. I plan on stepping out of daily 5 and "centers" and into more whole group lessons with various break out sessions (independent reading, paired readings and guided reading).

I always feel the need every year to plan activities and create predictable structures so I can just "fill in" content. It has felt like a major disservice to my students. I think now the content will lead and the methods will be dictated by the learning goals.

The only problem is the fact that Daily 5 provided routine. I know that routine is really important. With a more breathable structure (letting the content and rigorous instruction inform what we will be doing), am I getting away from the important aspect of routine? I am concerned about this. How can I create a routine while allowing flexibility to adjust my methods based on content and learning goals?

Hopefully this makes sense. I have been reading a close reading text all day and I am tired. :) Thank you!

8/26/2015
I've felt this way for a long time now. I am tired of "fluff" and empty activities that simply just keep kids "busy." It almost feels like the new worksheet.

I do find that close reading is a more rigorous approach to teaching reading. I plan on stepping out of daily 5 and "centers" and into more whole group lessons with various break out sessions (independent reading, paired readings and guided reading).

I always feel the need every year to plan activities and create predictable structures so I can just "fill in" content. It has felt like a major disservice to my students. I think now the content will lead and the methods will be dictated by the learning goals.

The only problem is the fact that Daily 5 provided routine. I know that routine is really important. With a more breathable structure (letting the content and rigorous instruction inform what we will be doing), am I getting away from the important aspect of routine? I am concerned about this. How can I create a routine while allowing flexibility to adjust my methods based on content and learning goals?

Hopefully this makes sense. I have been reading a close reading text all day and I am tired. :) Thank you!

8/26/2015
Lindsay--

Routine is very important. I agree that is the one valuable ingredient in Daily 5 (and similar schemes). Try building your routines and schedule around outcomes instead of activity. For example, let's say you schedule writing everyday from 11:00-11:30 (or every other day from 1:00-2:00PM). What goes into that slot would include several different activities, but they would all be aimed at helping your students to write better. Thus, during the writing period kids might be reading each others drafts to provide feedback, or kids might be drafting while you conference with particular kids, or maybe everyone will be trying to rewrite, or perhaps you'd be making a presentation to explain how you want a piece of writing to be addressed. Another period can be devoted to reading comprehension... that would include reading time, guided reading activities like close reading or strategy practice.

You can add even more routine if you have a particular sequence that these will take place (we are reading literature for the next two weeks, and then we'll shift to science text for two weeks) or Mondays the teacher presents and the kids draft, Tuesdays we finish drafts and share them for feedback, Wednesdays we revise, Thursdays the kids get feedback from the teacher, and do final revisions, and Friday is a sharing day... etc.

9/12/2015
I am just starting a new reading series that our school has adopted. How to implement this has become much clearer after reading all 28 posts. Thank you for this relevant discussion.

6/22/2016
Daily 5 is a framework. However, Daily 5 is not to be used alone. It is to accompany CAFE (Comprehension, Accuracy, Fluency, and Expanding Vocabulary) which entails goal setting.

6/23/2016
So you need two frameworks to actually address what kids need to learn so that you can incorporate the activities that you've already decided that you want to use. I'd focus on what needs to be taught and then fit your methods to those needs.

11/2/2016
I see the term "explicit" being used quite a bit in these posts. True explicit instruction isn't just teaching a mini-lesson to a small group or explaining something in detail (to a large or small group). Explicit instruction, as outlined by master teacher Anita Archer in her book Explicit Instruction, has 16 of what she calls "instructional behaviors and elements". An explicit lesson is carefully designed and each lesson builds on the one before it. It includes, among other things,breaking down and sequencing skills, skill review in each lesson, careful language choice by the teacher, guided practice, and many other components. A conference or a mini-lesson does not provide the same instruction. Unless your readers are getting some kind of program that is designed explicitly, such as Read Well or Reading Mastery, which have many of those 16 elements built in, it is almost impossible to provide true explicit instruction on your own. You would have to be designing appropriate curriculum, which has already been done. Is Daily 5 an attempt to avoid packaged curriculum? If so, I understand, because a lot of curriculum is poorly designed and not explicit at all. But there are a few masterful ones like I mentioned.
Explicit instruction has independent practice built in, but the main idea is that the teacher provides instruction. Reading programs that are designed to be specifically leveled can be appropriate for everyone.
When I taught first grade and we had Read Well, we had 13 reading groups and did a walk to read for the entire grade level for one hour a day. Besides 3 teachers, we had 4 EAs for the hour (our principal believes in "flooding" a grade level with help during reading). Every child was at their exact right reading level for explicit instruction, including a group that was beyond Read Well and reading short novels, and a group that was pre-Read Well and working on other phonics activities.
The higher groups got 20 minutes of explicit instruction and rotated to 2 other stations including independent reading (a CAFE sort of thing). The lower groups got explicit instruction for the entire hour. They needed an entire hour of solid instruction and practice with a teacher or an EA trained in the curriculum.
My opinion is that true explicit instruction (NOT just explaining or introducing a concept), enough to meet the needs of your struggling readers, is perhaps more than the term implies which is being used in this dialogue.

1/20/2017
I work with several schools that use the Next Steps in Guided Reading framework (Jan Richardson) in their classrooms. They have
4-5 groups total, and meet with about three groups per day for 20-25 minutes each. This time provides direct, explicit, differentiated instruction for students. The lower- level groups meet daily with the teacher while the higher group typically meets less often with the teacher in a small group setting. Most schools do not have para-professionals (classroom aides) available to them. The typical literacy block is around 115-120 minutes for K-4 students. With the guided reading framework in place, what are some suggestions for what their literacy block could look like to allow for maximum student engagement and alignment with Common Core ELA Standards? What should the kids be doing when the teacher is meeting with small groups if not Daily 5? What resources do you suggest for CC whole group lessons?

1/25/2017
Tricia--
I don't think that is enough reading instruction to get most kids to the levels they need to reach. Perhaps this is in a particularly economically advantaged community, and teachers can rely on the parents to get the job done. Hope so.

These groups are too small and there are too many of them for regular classroom instruction. Most learning takes place when the teacher is working with the kids, so If most kids are getting about 20-25 minutes per day it is problematic. Indeed, trying to cover instruction when the teacher is with small groups is tough.

I suggest instead of starting with the idea that you are going to have particular kinds of groups or that you are going to do particular kinds of activities, but that you start with what it is that you want kids to know or to be able to do. Obviously, the specifics of these will vary by grade level, but fundamentally we want kids to be able to:

1. Read and spell words (not on the basis of pictures or context or copying, but reading them by looking at the words, or spelling them by ear).
2. Read text with sufficient accuracy, speed, and with appropriate prosody (if you are reading English, it should sound like English--you should be able to read text well enough that someone listening would be able to comprehend).
3. Read text with comprehension (you should be able to be able to summarize or retell the text information, to be able to interpret and critically analyze text information, and you should be able to synthesize--compare, combine--information from across multiple texts).
4. Write text (you should be able to teach kids to communicate fluently through writing).

Some of those might be taught whole class, some in groups, some in a combination. You will need to keep groups large enough or rare enough that will allow you to teach all the children all these things. The activities that you use should lead to those outcomes. If they are not working, then you need to change them. (I would suggest devoting roughly 1/4 of the time to each of those goals--since they are all important).

good luck.

1/25/2017
Ironically this is an economically disadvantaged school. I am going to suggest trying to increase the size of the groups and meeting with three groups for a total of 60 minutes per day, allowing for more "whole group" teaching time. However, I am torn as so much I am reading as a literacy consultant is pushing for small group instruction vs. whole group. I am very excited about having more time for writing, as this is a particular area of struggle I see in many of the schools I work with. 130 minutes seems to be the maximum time schools are scheduling for ELA instruction. I too wish there was more. As a former K/1 teacher, I had 180 solid minutes per day. However, I was teaching in a different state under a different set of guidelines.

Your personal response and advice is of great help to me in providing direction and clarification as well as a different way to look at things. I am fairly new to the consulting field and want to gather as much experienced professional input as possible.

1/25/2017
The problem, Tricia, is that research finds that small group instruction is more effective than whole class instruction as long as the amounts of teaching are equivalent (which your colleagues are focusing on). That's very different than finding 25 minutes of small group teaching is as effective as 2 hours of whole class instruction. And because most of this kind of grouping is done around reading levels, it can have some additional unfortunate affects for racial minorities and poverty kids.

If we could just get all classrooms down to 17 kids and all instructional groups to 3 or less for unlimited amounts of time, we'd certainly get much further. Unfortunately, that isn't the challenge. I certainly believe in grouping (and even teaching individual kids), but those are just tools--the issue is how do you get all of the kids to the levels that we strive for. 25 minutes of teaching is not likely to cut it. sorry.

Jumping in here in 2020. During our years of Daily 5, as an interventionest, I was able to "pull" students and deliver 50 minutes of explicit Phonics Instruction. The students worked with me in small group during "read to self" and "word work." The positive:
1) Students were not missing out on classroom instruction for 50 minutes a day 4 days a week...????.
2) Students were getting explicit instruction down the hall ????

At that time, my wish was that one day we teach reading explicitly not by exploring and guessing.

Our teachers are hard workers and come to school with loads on their mind to bring our students to their highest achievement.

I pinch myself when I read all the dialogue and research that supports our future!!!

Daily 5 is a framework. However, Daily 5 is not to be used alone. It is to accompany CAFE (Comprehension, Accuracy, Fluency, and Expanding Vocabulary) which entails goal setting.

This is a very narrow view of the Daily 5 and would argue that perhaps you have not read the books written by the Boushey sisters as their model includes explicit instruction at the beginning of every daily 5 session, before students go into independent work. The main point of the Daily 5 framework is to allow teachers to develop conferencing effectively in their classrooms. Both one on one and small strategy groups. There, importantly, is also a reflection time built into each Daily 5 session with the whole class so that students are held accountable for what they are doing during the independent learning time.

Also, we have seen incredible improvement in students self-efficacy as writers and readers by using this framework. This is only one framework that we use and as has been proven by research all teachers must have a balance of literacy practices.

Deborah--

I don't think my view is narrow at all -- I suspect I've gotten into more classrooms than you have. In any event, I go with results and research over what makes a teacher happy with what she is doing. I'd imagine that since your kids are reflecting daily their reading achievement must be climbing and all is good with the world -- I'd love to see those data. You're concerned about how the kids view themselves as readers and writers (which is nice, but I'd rather make sure they can read really well, something we're not doing so well these days and the Daily 5 doesn't promote the kinds of things that tend to make students more literate.

tim