Conversations and Commentary: Literacy Questions in Illinois
By Louise Dechovitz
With the Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan in place, and the conversation about literacy continuing, Illinois literacy advocates continue to elevate the Plan, but acknowledge there is a lot of work left to be done.
What do people still not understand about literacy?
I think there is still a pervasive myth that explicit instruction is needed just for some students, and that a constructivist approach, also called “discovery learning” or “inquiry-based learning,” is appropriate for others. It is not an either/ or situation. We know from decades of research in cognitive science that when a person is a novice learner (e.g., a 5-year-old at school for the first time, a middle-schooler learning chemistry for the first time, or a college student learning engineering for the first time), explicit instruction is most effective and efficient.
Once that individual has a strong foundation in that learning and is accurate and fluent, then a more inquiry/discovery-based instructional approach can be appropriate.
Just recently, I heard from an Illinois parent whose district’s staff — including the reading specialist — told families that science-aligned reading curricula are a “fad,” too difficult for teachers to implement, and likely to disappear with the next political shift. This kind of thinking reflects deeper systemic misunderstandings and resistance to change.
Implementing evidence-based literacy instruction is indeed challenging, but not because it doesn’t work. It is challenging because many teachers were never adequately trained in these methods. This is where local leadership really matters a lot.
School boards have a vital role to play in ensuring their district anchors literacy instruction in research-based and evidence-based practices. They must hold their superintendents accountable for providing high-quality, sustained professional development and adopting aligned curricula.
Science is not a fad, and our children cannot afford for schools to chase pedagogical trends at the expense of what is proven to work. When board members use their oversight authority to ask hard questions, demand better training for teachers and staff, and stay focused on student outcomes, they become powerful allies for both teachers and children.
What do you think about the Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan?
The Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan is really well done, and we at the Illinois Early Literacy Coalition are pleased with the way ISBE invested the time to solicit feedback and develop a plan with significant input and buy-in from the field. There are some areas that we would like to see refined as they continue to refresh the Plan with updates, but generally, Illinois has a solid foundational document that outlines what literacy instruction should look like. ISBE also has a host of tools, toolkits, and resources on their website for educators, district leaders, educator preparation programs, and even for families and community members.
One of my favorite features of the Plan includes the charts that explicitly share evidence-based practices and corresponding practices that do not align with evidence. Our Coalition felt strongly that this degree of specificity was important guidance for educators who need to know more about the practical implications for instruction, and also to debunk some of the “outdated” instructional practices that are not supported by literacy research. The Plan also includes a paragraph up front that says we don’t use the phrase “science of reading” because people have varying perceptions of what that means. The Plan is specific and doesn’t rely on buzzwords. We didn’t want people to skim through it to decide if they supported the Plan based on some ideology or “taking a side.”
We genuinely wanted the Plan to be true to the research and user-friendly for readers, and it achieves that.
How do you feel about the progress Illinois has made, since literacy began its current splash?
I have mixed feelings about this. While we do have a great literacy plan, there are no requirements for schools to follow it. Also, while we secured $3 million in the state budget last year (which dropped to $1.5 million this year), resources dedicated to implementation of the Plan are scarce. Anecdotally, we hear about rooms of 100+ teachers where not one person has heard of the Plan. But we’ve also seen a lot of districts improving their curriculum, screeners, and professional development to better align with evidence-based literacy practices.
Last year, our literacy coalition worked on a bill (HB4902 Faver Dias/Lightford) that requires IL-EMPOWER learning partners working with turnaround schools to align their ELA supports with the Plan. This year, we passed HB1368 (also Faver Dias/Lightford) that requires ISBE-approved professional development providers to align their ELA training with evidence as outlined in the Plan.
We continue to elevate the Plan, but there is a lot of work left to be done.
In addition, we continually hear that teachers are eager to learn about evidence-based instructional practices, as they did not gain this knowledge or training in their educator preparation programs (EPPs). This is a serious problem, not only for the disservice to the teacher candidates, but it also puts the burden of re-training teachers on the school districts, and the burden is significant. I would like to see the state support our EPPs to align to the Plan and to the Administrative Code, and to put on notice those programs that do not come into compliance. This will require a robust audit process for program review and reauthorization.
What are the next steps for literacy in Illinois?
There are many. The original SB 2243 (Lightford/Mayfield) required ISBE to revise the content test for the grade 1 – 6 licensure band to add enough questions to produce a valid and reliable subscore for literacy. That is being developed, and teacher candidates will begin taking the new test next year.
Then, we will see data that indicates which EPPs are preparing candidates well for that portion of the test. As stated above, we still have work to do to ensure that EPPs are providing teacher candidates with the pedagogical knowledge they need to effectively teach children to read and write, and we hear repeatedly from teachers who have graduated and entered classrooms that they feel ill-prepared to support students who have difficulty, as well as those who are multilingual learners.
Our Coalition has worked together with Everyone Reading Illinois for several years to advance universal literacy screening, and continues to face a lot of challenges in making progress on that front. Because Illinois is mandate-averse, we cannot simply mandate a specific screener, and there is still plenty of opposition to creating a list of high-quality screener options. As a result, many schools continue to use screeners that are expensive, time-consuming, and inaccurate in identifying students who are at risk for reading difficulties, or may already be having difficulties.
There are also a lot of schools that have good screeners but don’t know what to do with the data they collect. Ultimately, schools need to have a strong multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) in order to effectively and efficiently respond to children’s needs. Such a system requires high-quality screening and evidence-based response to that screening, beginning with strong Tier 1 instruction. So we want to work to support MTSS across the state.
As I said above, funding and implementation support for the Literacy Plan continues to be a huge challenge, and there are broader funding issues, like coming up with resources for regional literacy coaching hubs, summer learning, early childhood, and after-school tutoring.
There are other challenges that tangentially impact literacy achievement, such as chronic absenteeism.
What can IASB members do to support literacy?
As a two-term board member, I attended the Joint Annual Conference many times. With the support of my board of education and superintendent, I drafted and defended a Resolution at the 2021 Delegate Assembly on pre-service teacher education and licensure in reading science, and it passed with overwhelming support of the delegates and is now an IASB Position Statement.
I would love for the November 2026 Conference to include sessions on evidence-based literacy and numeracy instruction. ISBE recently held a Numeracy Plan Summit and has started drafting a State Numeracy Plan. Moving the needle of literacy and numeracy achievement in our state will take the combined efforts of all stakeholders working together.
What resources can you think of that would help explain evidence-based practices in teaching and learning reading to school board members?
I think all school board members should be aware of the Illinois Comprehensive Literacy Plan and ISBE’s Dyslexia Handbook, written by the Illinois SLD Support Project. ISBE also has a literacy toolkit specifically for families and community members, and another one for district leaders.
School board members should talk with their superintendents about the Plan and the Dyslexia Handbook, and ask how their districts are using these important tools. Is the district developing a local literacy plan as advised? How can the board support the district’s efforts for staff professional development and acquisition of high-quality instructional materials?
We are all continuing to learn, but students need effective instruction now. Our responsibility is to act on the evidence we have, while continuing to grow our understanding. Scientific knowledge is always advancing, and the evidence base for how children learn to read, write, and comprehend text continues to deepen. When we know better, we must do better, for our students, our educators, and our communities.