To help move systems forward in based on The Science of Reading and Structured Literacy, a stage framework can be critical to help understand where an organization is the journey toward full implementation. If IDA and TRL provide overarching frameworks, a implementation stage framework allows internal and external stakeholders to understand common areas of focus, conditions needed for change, possible issues, key benchmarks and questions to develop the system. Amplify, the 95 Percent Group, and Lexia, all have similar stages that are expanded from the NIRN Stages of Implementation Tool but generally agree that five stages are really needed to break down the commonalities from zero to full speed. For clarity, organizations can also separate preparation (before widespread structured literacy instruction begins) and implementation (after launches of instructional initiatives with trained teachers).
Early Preparation
In this stage, leaders are developing a base awareness of the science of reading, establishing early goals and principles and organizing a team to research and evaluate current literacy practice against evidence-based best practices.
Targeted Outcome: Educators want to leave this stage with deep awareness and dedication to structured literacy and the beginnings of an empowerment plan for all personnel.
Conditions for Change
A recognition by organizational literacy leaders that evidence and research linked structured literacy is the most equitable path to literacy for all students.
Leadership has succinct desire to implement structured literacy in an organization because of that recognition.
Key Questions
What does the body of evidence say about best literacy practice?
How aware are my organizational leaders of the best evidence-based practices?
What is my current state of literacy practices?
Who are the leaders of literacy in my organization that need to come together to build a path to future refined practice?
Deep Preparation
This phase is about empowering teachers and leaders of literacy with knowledge and skills to teach and lead structured literacy. The phase may start with base level training or that may occur in the Early Preparation phase. As teachers have a transformative training experience, they will begin to adjust their instructional practices. Due to the complexity of training all necessary staff, often this phase will overlap with Initial Implementation as empowered leaders and teachers will begin new practices while others may still go through training.
Targeted Outcome: Educators want to leave this stage with a readiness to initiate structured literacy implementation and the beginnings of creating a structured literacy system.
Conditions for Change
To begin to truly deepen understanding, there should be wide scale development of awareness.
Organizations must be ready to compensate teachers for the deep time commitment and must be ready to build the bridge to practice as professional learning occurs.
A key literacy team must be in place, working with transparent and dedicated focus across the organization.
Key Questions
How do we empower teachers with the ability to teach structured literacy and not just attend passive professional learning?
What is the full set of professional learning we need to know, who needs to know it and what is the timeline?
How will instructional practice look different in the initial stages of implementation and what is MOST important to begin to plan for?
Initial Implementation
Initial Implementation is like it sounds, getting started with instruction. Preferably, this begins with an adjustment of the core instructional block for all students. However, depending on material availability, adoption cycles and other factors, some organizations will adjust intervention practices first and then full adjustment of the literacy block. Moving out of this phase can not really be considered until Tier One instruction is aligned with structured literacy practice. (ie. you can’t intervene your way out of a tier one problem).
Targeted Outcome: Educators want to leave this stage with experience implementing structured literacy and an initial view of a broader framework or coordinated structured literacy practice. We may see leading indicators changes in benchmark, screening and progress monitoring scores, but expectations should not be set to have reading proficiency increases until later stages.
Conditions for Change
Alignment across the organization about the MOST important elements of initial implementation.
Top level leadership backs up and articulates the urgency of the situation with space for the group of literacy leaders to have honest discussions about impact with the Superintendent, Board and other leaders.
A deep understanding of budget options depending on deep beliefs from the literacy team. Budgets match expectations of prioritized initial items.
Key Questions
What is my new literacy instruction looking like while implementing the basics of SoR?
Where do I have initial momentum in adjusted instruction and where do I need additional professional learning?
What elements of structured literacy are present in core instruction, including focus on all elements of Scarborough’s Rope, Explicit/Diagnostic instruction?
Extended Implementation
Ok, you are cooking with gasoline now - such a weird phase. But if you are in Extended Implementation, you are really bringing so many elements together, including tiered instruction, strong assessment practices, collaboration across teachers and leaders. This is typically the longest phase that will have closing point. We consider this phase ending when literacy leaders have identified, started and are implementing all the priority components they deem necessary to deliver structured literacy outcomes.
Targeted Outcome: Educators want to leave this stage with all elements of structured literacy in place according to an overarching framework with clear principles. This phase is the beginning phase of where we would expect to see changes in reading proficiency outcomes, but success will be incremental.
Conditions for Change
Deep understanding across the organization on almost all structured literacy elements.
A culture dedicated to structured literacy with open, transparent discussion on practice.
Core instruction, intervention instruction and assessment practices in place to support structured literacy practices.
Key Questions
Do we have the evidence- and research based instructional tools and assessments across the board?
What are the levels of instructional fidelity for key components of my structured literacy plan?
What continued professional learning is necessary to keep advancing practice?
What documentation do we have in place on our overarching plan and understanding of actual current practice?
Full Implementation and continuous review
Some folks refer to this as the sustainability phase, but as we work with organizations, the final phase seems to be when all key components are identified, started and being implemented as designed. This starts a phase of continually monitoring the feedback loops of all components of the system to work together and continuously adjust to optimize their impact. While you may see incremental improvements in Extended Implementation, the promise of the Science of Reading is delivered by systems in full Implementation continuously reviewing their full instructional practice.
Targeted Outcome: Significantly increased reading proficiency scores with a goal of 95% eventually.
Conditions for Change
Across the board, there not only a dedication to structured literacy, but both teachers and leaders can describe the overarching literacy plan and discuss individual elements that are key to overarching success.
All personnel directly or indirectly should use a common language around structured literacy instructions, as well as understand proficiency goals and literacy principles.
Key Questions
Do I have SMART goals and scalable measurement techniques for all components of my structure literacy implementation?
Does my literacy plan and the delivery of plan address the needs of all learners, include English Language Learners, students with disabilities and advanced students.
Do I understand my instructional and assessment mapping to the level where I can explain the link between outcomes and instructional practice vs. gaps in my instructional plan and/or external issues such as student turnover, relevance?