If I kept a scrapbook of my teaching career and labeled each part with a title,

the section for this last year would be called The Year of New Initiatives. This
was the year that my colleagues and I tried to keep our heads above water
while navigating the currents of new assessment demands, new report cards,
new changes to our pacing guides, new online textbooks, and new teacher
evaluation systems.

The changes hit like a wave that caused much of our energy to be spent simply
staying afloat, although many of us knew we were also sorely in need of
professional dialogue about effective instruction if we were to keep our teaching
spark alive. We needed a way to feed the part of us that, despite the new
initiatives, continued to question whether we were providing kids with the best
possible reading instruction we could.

In January, a group of us turned to a Teachers as Readers group in an effort to

take a step back and re-energize, reconnect, and remind ourselves of what is
truly important when it comes to effective reading instruction. We focused our
energy on reading and discussing the book What Really Matters for Struggling
Readers (Allington, 2012), and the article Every Child, Every Day(Allington &
Gabriel, 2012).

As a result of our meetings, a curious thing happened: we not only talked about
the research on effective teaching, and “the six elements of instruction that
every child should experience every day” (Allington & Gabriel, 2012), but we
ended each session with a twist by compiling our thoughts about what we, as
teachers, needed to experience every day in order for this effectiveness to
happen. The following represents our own thinking and learning regarding what
every teacher should experience every day in order to implement effective
reading instruction for all readers, including those who are motivated,
advanced, reluctant, or struggling.

Teachers need time to teach language arts

As we talked about our take-away points from the professional reading we were
doing, the issue of time kept surfacing over and over again. Teachers need time
for planning, time for collaborating, time for learning, time for reflecting, and of
course time for teaching. But perhaps the most important point that surfaced
with respect to this topic was that teachers need enough time in their language
arts block to implement effective reading instruction, and they need it every
day.

In many schools and districts, guidelines exist regarding the number of minutes
children should spend in a language arts block. Usually, the required
uninterrupted block is longest in the primary grades, and gets a bit shorter in
the upper elementary grades with an added expectation that students will
spend additional time receiving language arts instruction in the form of
integrated lessons in the content areas. This is the guideline and the
expectation, but is this really what always happens?

Consider this possible scenario in an upper elementary grade where students

are assigned to a language arts teacher depending on what type of learners
they are. If students are considered “advanced learners,” they are placed with a
teacher who teaches language arts for advanced learners. If students have an
identified learning issue and need a special reading program as part of the
goals on an IEP, they are placed with a different teacher who has a group of
students scheduled to work for part of the language arts block with a specialist.
If students are “average learners,” they are placed with yet another teacher for
instruction in language arts.

While the nature of such a set-up may sound as if all needs are being met, we
are still left feeling the need for more time in the language arts block. In fact,
we are actually left grappling with the following questions: Could it be that a
schedule that was designed to provide special programs for all types of special
learners (advanced to remedial) is taking time away from language arts
instruction with some students? Why does our language arts block seem like it
is constantly being whittled away? Why, after all the consideration for matching
students to appropriate teachers and programs, do teachers still feel like they
are constantly losing precious minutes?

In the conversations surrounding our professional reading, we realized several

things. First, we realized that there is no way around the fact that transition
time cuts into instructional time. When students move from a homeroom to a
language arts class, precious minutes are lost. When students move in and out
of a special program with a specialist, precious minutes are lost. And when
students pack up to leave their language arts teacher at the end of the block,
even if they are heading off to work with an intervention teacher, precious
minutes are lost.

We also realized that many times, it is our students with identified learning
needs that are being impacted the most with respect to the issue of time spent
in language arts instruction. While we acknowledged the fact that those
students may need specialized instruction from an expert, we also realized that
in some cases we are still providing that instruction during their designated
language arts time. This often translates to a transition out of the class, a
transition back into the class, and a program being delivered as part of the
language arts block rather than in addition to the language arts block. In
essence, the students who need more uninterrupted time practicing reading are
sometimes getting less, which is something we absolutely cannot continue if we
are truly committed to providing effective reading instruction for all students.

Finally, we realized that in an ideal world, we would raise our voices and
advocate for a two- hour uninterrupted language arts block, every day, from
grades K – 6. Our reasoning stemmed from the simple fact that research has
shown that the amount of reading has a positive impact on reading
development, as does the amount of time students spend practicing (Allington,
2012, Fielding & Pearson, l994; Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2006).

Yet in our upper elementary grades, even on a day without any outside
interruptions, students who spend time transitioning from class to class can
easily have a ninety-minute language arts block whittled down to eighty. Even
the best teachers feel rushed trying to fit a demonstration, guided practice,
independent practice and reflection into a reading and writing workshop in
eighty minutes. It goes without saying; teachers need enough time in their
language arts block in order to provide effective reading instruction.

Teachers need a yearly budget for classroom

libraries
In December of 2012, a small group of us were fortunate enough to hear
Donalyn Miller, author of The Book Whisperer (2009), speak at the Greater
Washington Reading Council’s fall reading conference. We were captivated by
her astounding yearly challenge to her students to read forty books, and her
quest to create lifelong readers among her students. We identified with her
passion for having students choose what they wanted to read in school and felt
validated to learn that there is much research to support this practice. We were
motivated to focus our energies on recommending books to students, and
encouraging them to recommend books to each other, in an effort to create
what she refers to as a “book frenzy” (Miller, 2009, p. 22). And we understood,
clearly, that when students walked into her classroom, they were sure to exit at
the end of the year as readers who chose to read for enjoyment. There is no
doubt that, in addition to having a teacher who was passionate about reading,
at the heart of this transformation lay the classroom library.

Classroom libraries are central to creating readers. They provide a launching

pad for book recommendations, a relaxing spot for discovering new titles and
genres, and an environment where books are instantly available during
language arts. They are also an ever-changing entity, as new books are
constantly being published, new titles and series are always being discovered,
and old books are continuously being weeded or replaced.

Just this past year, upper grade elementary students I worked with waited
anxiously for the sequel to Because of Mr. Terupt (Buyea, 2011), shared the
classroom library’s two copies of Wonder (Palacio, 2012), and begged for more
of Rick Riordan’s books to be added to the collection. This was just the tip of
the iceberg, because once students started sharing what they were reading
with each other, they were buzzing about what books they wanted to read
next, which authors they were enjoying, and which genres they were exploring.

Teachers need a budget for classroom libraries so that they can continue to add
fuel to the fire that starts to spread when students become part of a reading
community. When students begin choosing books, reading books, hearing
about books, discussing books, recommending books, and finding out about
books soon to be published, it’s like seeing a spark ignite. The way to keep
fanning the spark is to keep the excitement high by adding books during the
school year, when kids want to get their hands on them.

Unfortunately, it seems that in too many instances teachers are given a sum of
money to spend at the end of the year while they order their supplies for the
following school year. I’ve often wondered if this is the most effective way to do
this where reading is concerned, since classrooms are winding down for the end
of the year, teachers are busy with end-of-year responsibilities, and perhaps
most importantly, the books will arrive during the summer when classrooms are
empty and students are gone.

What if teachers were given a sum of money at the beginning of the school
year to spend on classroom libraries as the year went on? How would this
impact a classroom of students anxiously awaiting the publication of the next
Rick Riordan book? How would it impact a classroom of students who had just
discovered a new series that was currently unavailable in the classroom library?
How might such a decision impact a new teacher who has yet to establish a
classroom library at all? And, most importantly, what would it do for students’
motivation by giving them a say in what was ordered for the library as the year
progressed?

In the book Readicide, Gallagher (2009) shares an anecdote about being struck
by the realization that competitive Olympic swimmers not only had hours and
hours of practice, but before they even became Olympic swimmers they had
“access to the pool” (p. 29). He notes the comparison with students’ reading,
pointing out that if we are to put kids in a system that uses high stakes testing
as a way to determine reading achievement, then we had better be giving them
access to “the pool” so that they can practice. He then elaborates by stating
that, “If we want our students to do a lot more reading than they are currently
doing, they need to be immersed in a pool of high-interest reading material”
(Gallagher, 2009, p. 30).

This is where a well-maintained and continuously updated classroom library is

essential; it offers students the “pool” for diving in, getting hooked, and
practicing. People who own pools need a budget to maintain them: they clean
them, check that the chemicals are properly balanced, and add more water
when necessary. Teachers who create readers need a budget for classroom
libraries; they weed them, check that there is a balance of different genres and
series, and add more books through the year. Teachers need designated funds
in order to give their students access to a well- maintained pool of great
literature, where they can practice the strokes needed to become proficient
readers.
Teachers need to be evaluated fairly
Of all the new initiatives that landed on teachers’ plates this year, the new
evaluation system was probably one of the most heated. Teachers began their
school year with a new evaluation process that included a requirement of
writing measurable goals that addressed student progress over the school year.
It sounds fairly simple: the teacher would consider a group of students,
administer and analyze baseline assessments, then write a specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, timely and rigorous (SMART-R) goal that
would focus on raising the achievement level of the students.

On the surface, it sounded like a process that was designed to keep the focus
on student learning, requiring teachers to analyze students’ initial strengths and
instructional needs, and plan for their growth over the upcoming months. But in
reality, the new system had many components that added another layer of
stress, including the fact that forty percent of a teacher’s evaluation would be
based on students’ demonstrated achievement of these goals.

Evaluation is obviously a critical component of any profession, and teaching is

no exception. However, with the current emphasis on high stakes testing, many
teachers worry that evaluation is becoming more about analyzing scores than
receiving reflective feedback on their teaching. For example, in many school
systems, teachers give baseline assessments in reading at the beginning of the
year for the purpose of getting to know their students’ strengths and
instructional needs. If they choose reading as the academic strand for
evaluation purposes, they may also use the initial data when planning and
writing their SMART-R goals. When a teacher considers that forty percent of the
evaluation that determines worthiness of reappointment is based on meeting
this goal at the end of the year, there is a risk that instruction will be then be
focused on raising the scores rather than on creating lifelong readers. This
seems a logical outcome, but what is best for the students?

In Readicide (Gallagher, 2009), the author contends that, “Unfortunately,

testing pressure often trumps reason” (p.76). He is referring to the fact that we
have volumes of research to show that students in schools today are often
given a narrow lens through which to view reading, being taught to respond to
books in the language of testing, and being taught to answer questions in a
test-like format. This may raise the scores, but does it create students who will
want to read recreationally in their lives? And, more importantly, is it fair to say
that a teacher is worthy of reappointment by looking through the lens of
whether or not the students all raised their test scores as reflected in the
SMART-R goal?

Donalyn Miller (2009) advocates for the importance of using data such as
student interest surveys, student reflections, and end-of-year student
evaluations that ask students questions about how they have grown as readers.
She sets goals for her students based on the number of books they read over
the course of a year rather than the number of points they raise their fall
assessment scores by. And she helps students meet these goals by spending
her year recommending books to them, reading aloud to them, giving them
choice in their reading, and giving them the time needed to increase their
volume of reading. In essence, she spends the year devoting her time to
creating readers, giving students a wonderfully wide lens through which to view
the subject she is so passionate about.

Unfortunately, the culture of high-stakes testing is here to stay, along with the
pressures it creates for administrators, teachers, and students. Likewise, there
is no doubt that assessment remains an important part of teaching and
learning. But when raising the numbers begins to seem more important in a
teacher’s evaluation than having an ability to motivate students and foster a
love of reading, instruction runs the risk of suffering, as does teacher morale.

In a welcoming message written by a former president of CHADD (Children and

Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), Steven Peer (2011)
stated, “So many teachers I know entered the profession out of a passion, a
love of the children. And somewhere along the way, between the paperwork,
politics, and testing-to-benchmarks, they slid (ever so slowly) into operating
out of fear. It is debilitating” (p.2). Is it possible that an over-reliance on scores
will result in a number of teachers who make decisions regarding what, and
how, to teach based on fear of assessment results?

Fortunately, despite the fear that not all students will meet the SMART-R goal,
there are still plenty of teachers out there who exhibit the characteristics
needed to put kids on the path to becoming lifelong recreational readers. They
share their enthusiasm for books, put great books in the hands of students, and
create a classroom environment where kids are excited about reading. If our
mission as teachers is to ensure that students will continue to read when they
leave our system, then perhaps a fair teacher evaluation would consider these
characteristics to be as important, if not more important, than simply raising
the numbers on an assessment.

Teachers need assessment to guide instruction,

not take away from it
As stated earlier, assessment is still an important part of teaching and learning.
With respect to reading, teachers depend on the results of authentic
assessments to help them identify strengths and needs, set goals, and measure
progress. In other words, they depend on assessments to help them guide
instruction. But with the additional onslaught of high stakes testing, is it ever
possible to incorporate too much, to the point that the combination of yearly
formative and summative assessments starts taking away the very instructional
time students need? This topic came up at one of our Teachers as Readers
discussions, and the results of the conversation were quite enlightening.
As we looked at a typical school year, we asked ourselves if it were possible to
determine a ballpark figure of how much instructional time in language arts was
actually taken up with assessment in the upper elementary grades. We started
by mapping out the assessments given over the course of the school year that
occur during the scheduled language arts block. We factored in beginning of the
year reading assessments, county-wide assessments that measure progress
within the curriculum and toward the state standards, mid-year assessments,
end of year state tests, and the end of the year reading assessments. When we
additionally factored in the minimal time devoted to test preparation lessons,
we concluded that we were actually giving up close to a month of instructional
time in language arts to assessing our students. A month of instructional time?
Could this be possible?

An even more alarming thought occurred when we talked about our students
with diagnosed reading disabilities, some of whom were working in specialized
reading programs as part of the goals of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
It became evident that those students were often giving up even more time to
assessment because they also had to take tests that were a part of the
specialized reading program they were enrolled in. And since these students
were typically the most struggling readers, it became apparent that we were
putting our kids who had the most difficulty through even more rounds of
assessment, taking up more of their instructional time, and fearfully impacting
any joy they may have found in reading.

Formative and summative assessments are useful to teachers when the

purpose is to guide instruction. But many teachers feel frustrated by what
seems to be a tidal wave of assessment overload, compounded by the sad truth
that many of the assessments don’t necessarily even correlate to what they
measure. Add to this the fact that teachers’ evaluations are heavily weighted on
the ability to show progress on assessments, and the result can be that
teachers feel the need to constantly teach to the language of tests.

In a traditional reading workshop, one of the most powerful components is that

of the “minilesson,” where the teacher spends roughly ten minutes explicitly
teaching the students what they will need to learn before they are set off to
practice in a guided or independent setting. The concept of the minilesson is
based on the fact that students shouldn’t spend all their time listening to the
teacher teach, but rather should only have the explicit instruction necessary for
them to spend most of their valuable time applying what they learned.

I’ve often thought about how wonderful it would be if we could apply the same
concept to assessment, allowing teachers the professional capacity to use a
more “miniassessment” approach. The concept would be based on the fact that
students shouldn’t spend an unnecessary amount of time taking tests, but
rather should be required to take only those assessments that give teachers the
explicit information necessary to guide instruction and measure progress.
Testing would take up a smaller portion of the school year, so students would
be able to spend more of their valuable time practicing and applying the skills
they need to become successful readers.

Research has shown the need for students to be given time to read in order to
become successful at it. When discussing the results of the 1998 NAEP Reading
Report Card for the Nation (Donahue et al., 1999), Allington (2012) states that,
“At every age level, reading more pages in school and at home each day was
associated with higher reading scores” (p. 47). This requires that students be
given enough time during the year to be reading in school; we cannot afford to
give up a month of this time to assessment overload. When governments,
states, school districts, schools, and departments work to make decisions
regarding issues of testing, they need to look carefully at the amount of
instructional time that gets impacted with every required test.

Assessments are necessary in order to guide instruction and measure progress,

but when teachers lose weeks of instructional time due to testing requirements,
then perhaps it’s time to consider whether the benefit of acquiring all the data
outweighs the amount of time taken away from kids who could be reading.

Teachers need meaningful professional

development
In March, as we were planning the last few sessions of our Teachers as Readers
group, it struck me that the experience had provided something much deeper
than just the reading and discussing of a book. It had morphed into something
more meaningful, as teachers talked with each other, reflected on new learning
with each other, connected with each other, and made changes in their
practices based on what they were learning and a common goal of wanting to
do what’s best for kids.

In a school year where so many new initiatives were stealing teachers’ time and
energy, the format of the Teachers as Readers group not only ended up
providing the professional development we needed, but it was also responsible
for keeping many of us focused on what was truly important as we sifted
through the flood of requirements brought on by new initiatives at the district,
state, and even federal levels.

As teachers, we have long experienced professional development initiatives that

consisted of bringing in an expert to talk with us for a day or two. But as I think
about this, I am often left wondering: Is listening to an expert talk for a day the
best way to create a more expert teacher? Does it provide the collegial support
needed to try something new in a classroom? Does it lend itself to rich
conversation among colleagues?

In many of our schools, teachers are now meeting on a weekly basis in an

effort to closely monitor the achievement of their students and adjust their
teaching as needed based on assessment data. Teachers have established what
used to be known as PLCs (Professional Learning Communities), which have
since evolved into the more current acronym of CLTs (Collaborative Learning
Teams).

As a result of these weekly team meetings, teachers are keenly aware of which
students are mastering material, which students are struggling, and which
students are exceeding expectations. The concept not only allows teachers to
identify students who need

re-teaching,

students who have grasped concepts, and students who need enrichment, but it
also creates an environment where teachers work together to plan and take
responsibility for the success of all students at a particular grade level. As I
attend these meetings, I am always impressed by the focus on data, and how
assessment results are being used to adjust instruction.

However, I am also left wondering how on earth a teacher takes the next step
after identifying students who are struggling. How does the teacher become
skilled at reaching the struggling learner? What “tools” are available to help the
teacher become more of an expert in providing what is needed for a student to
succeed? When do the teachers talk about what kinds of instructional
components need to be in place in order for more students to be successful,
and when do they learn how to implement these components?

As an outside observer, I sometimes wonder if the concept of the CLT runs the
risk of becoming what might be called a CAT (Collaborative Analyzing Team)
because, when teams need to invest so much of their time analyzing student
assessment data, there is often little time left for discussing next steps for
effective instruction. While the assessment data are important for identifying
the strengths and needs of the students, isn’t it still worth asking how we
continue to keep a focus on the “L,” so that our teams go beyond the analysis
of the data and meet the end result of learning how to provide what their
students need?

According to Allington (2012), “Professional development should be a personal

professional responsibility as well as an organizational responsibility” (p. 161).
In other words, as teachers we have a responsibility to find ways to fulfill the
need for ongoing professional development, but as employees we depend on
the organization we work for to support our efforts to do so. This is why it is
crucial for school systems to continue supporting initiatives such as Teachers as
Readers projects, and Teacher Inquiry projects; these projects keep the “L” at
the forefront of collaborative learning, allowing teachers the opportunity to
share new knowledge, question, implement, reflect, and collect data.

Compare the importance of these initiatives with those that take place in a
teaching hospital. It may sound strange, but if a loved one needed an expert to
perform a surgical procedure for a health condition, I would want that person to
go to a teaching hospital. Why? According to
Merriam-Webster,

the medical definition of a teaching hospital is, “A hospital that is affiliated with
a medical school and provides the means for medical education to students,
interns, residents, and sometimes postgraduates” (Merriam- Webster,
Incorporated, 2013). In other words, the staff and students at these hospitals
have continuous access to cutting edge research, education and training while
delivering

top-notch

patient care.

Wouldn’t it be great if more schools followed a similar model and became

“teaching schools,” where they were affiliated with a university or staff
development center that provided the means for continuous

on-site

education and training for teachers so that they could deliver expert teaching to
their students? Teachers need meaningful professional development if they are
to be part of collaborative learning teams that remain on the cutting edge of
education, and provide top notch, expert instruction for the students in their
care.

Teachers need student input

As our Teachers as Readers group was nearing the final session, we began
talking about all we had learned about what students need, every day, in order
to become successful readers, and what we as teachers need, every day, in
order to provide it to them. We summarized the topics of time, budget, staff
development, teacher evaluation, and student assessment, and then found
ourselves turning to the topic of asking the students. After all, how often is it
that we truly ask the students what would make reading instruction effective,
or even fun, for them?

In The Book Whisperer, Donalyn Miller (2009) spends time explaining the
various surveys, reflections, and student evaluations she uses with students in
an effort to let them have input into what it is they need to further develop as
readers. She creates an environment where students are candid with her as
they share their interests, struggles, successes, and goals. With the spring
season and its high stakes testing schedule looming right around the corner, we
decided to at least carve out a moment to ask some of our own students what
might make reading more enjoyable for them in school, and we discovered the
results to be wonderfully insightful.
 For example, when we recently asked a group of fourth graders what would
make reading more fun for them in school, a surprising amount of conversation
erupted as everyone seemed to want a voice. One particular class shared many
responses, which were then compiled into a “top ten” list based on what the
students said. The results looked like this:

Ten Things That Would Make Reading More Fun For

Fourth Graders:
Instead of tests we should write a paragraph about what we are reading or
learning.

1. We could read books that were interesting even if they were too hard or too
easy.
2. More books…… WAY more!
3. More comics.
4. More time for reading, and more conferences.
5. The teacher should read the read aloud book longer.
6. Less “Sit at your desk, honey.”
7. We need to share our books, like maybe having partners that we talk to every
time so we can interact about our books.
8. Act out more scenes from the book in reader’s theatre.
9. A more comfortable place to sit! Bean bags or something…. at least something
softer than these plastic chairs!!!
Looking over the list, we were reminded of how many of the items identified by
students were also identified in the text we were reading in our Teachers as
Readers group, as we saw the students speak to issues of time, choice, and
opportunity for sharing. Even the last item that addressed having a comfortable
place to sit brought a smile to our faces as we were reminded of how rarely it is
that we, as teachers, race home at the end of the day to curl up in a stiff plastic
chair to read.

What surprised us the most was that when we had opportunities to ask
students what they thought would make reading more enjoyable for them in
school, they almost always replied with responses that were

research-based.

Students want more choice, more access to a variety of books, more time to
talk about their books, more opportunities to be read to, and more time for
reading, all of which are proven components of effective reading instruction.
As teachers sift through the demands of content curriculum, pacing guides,
reporting instruments, and assessments, they should also be encouraged to
deviate from the agenda once in a while and simply ask the students what
would make reading more fun for them. The input they receive will provide
valuable insight into students’ perceptions of themselves as developing readers.
Students often know what it is they need, and teachers will find it enlightening
when they give them a voice and take their responses to heart.

Conclusion
This was the year of new initiatives, a year when teachers were asked to
navigate many changes in the form of instruction, assessment, textbook
formats, reporting systems, and teacher evaluation. But despite all the
changes, many of us found ourselves wanting, even needing, a professional
development opportunity such as the one we received from our Teachers as
Readers group. It offered us a chance to step back and look at the research on
what is truly important for all students when providing the best possible
instruction in reading.

As I reflect on the highlights of leading the Teachers as Readers group this

year, it occurs to me that we need to keep the conversation going. The
research tells us what students need for effective reading instruction, we’ve
identified what we as teachers need in order to provide it, and yet we still
struggle to get to a point where our schedules, budgets, and assessment
requirements are in line with the items we’ve identified.

Maybe next year will go down in my mental scrapbook as The Year That Change
Made Sense, where we would find a way to put more uninterrupted time in our
schedules, cut back on the number of assessments given, have access to funds
for classroom libraries, and find a way to consider student motivation and a
teacher’s passion for creating lifelong readers as important factors in an
evaluation.

Maybe we would spend less time collecting, entering, and analyzing data and
more time engaged in professional learning as we work toward becoming more
expert teachers.

Maybe we would focus less on raising the numbers on our assessments and
focus more on the joy we find in teaching and instilling that joy in our students.

I do believe that just as students seem to know what they need in order to
learn, teachers seem to know what they need in order to teach. We just need
to raise our voices, speak to what’s best for kids, and stay true to what really
matters in effective reading instruction.
About the author
Donna Mecca is a reading teacher at Armstrong Elementary School in Fairfax
County, Virginia. She received her B.A. in Special Education from Hood College
and her M.Ed. in Reading from Towson State University. She is interested in
finding ways to motivate reluctant readers, and is an advocate for what both
students and teachers need in order to make reading instruction effective and
fun.

References

References
Click the "References" link above to hide these references.

Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing

research-based programs (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Allington, R. L. & Gabriel, R. E. (2012). Every child, every day. Educational

Leadership, 69(6), 10-15.

Buyea, R. (2011). Because of Mr. Terupt. New York, NY: Yearling.

Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998
reading report card for the nation and the states. (NCES 1999; 500).
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Fielding, L. & Pearson, D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What

works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-68.

Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you
can do about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Merriam-Webster (2013). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/teaching%20hospital

Miller, D. (2009). The Book Whisperer. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Palacio, R.J. (2012). Wonder. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Peer, S. (2011). Operating out of love or fear. Attention, 18(5), 2.

Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2006). Fluency instruction: Research-
basedbest practices. New York: Guilford.
Donna Mecca (2016)