Fluctuating Attention on Adolescent Literacy
Adolescent literacy has long experienced fluctuating attention, unlike early literacy, which benefits from consistent policy focus and funding. Researchers have repeatedly emphasized the need for middle and high school literacy support, yet efforts to address it have often been fragmented and temporary.
A Carnegie Corporation report by Snow & Biancarosa (2003) highlighted this challenge, noting that while K–3 reading instruction had received sustained investment, adolescent literacy required urgent focus. The report warned that early reading gains could fade without continued literacy support through secondary grades. Later, Morsy, Kieffer, & Snow (2010) reinforced this concern by analyzing the limitations of existing reading comprehension assessments for adolescents, calling for stronger tools to evaluate literacy progress in middle and high schools.
State-Level Investment in Adolescent Literacy: A Fragmented Approach
Unlike in previous decades, when national initiatives and reports helped focus attention on adolescent literacy as a cohesive policy issue, interest today varies state by state. The federal Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLSD) grants under ESSA have spurred investments in secondary literacy. When and if a state gets CLSD funding, they start initiatives and roll out programs. When the funding ends, schools often have a hard time maitaining a focus on adolescent literacy. This approach makes it difficult for states, regional teams, and districts to develop sustained tools and expertise (20 U.S.C. § 6642).
This “boom-and-bust” cycle is a familiar problem in education. A well-funded new literacy program might launch with enthusiasm, gain traction among teachers, and even boost student outcomes. But if that program is heavily reliant on external consultants or costly resources, it often disappears as soon as the grant ends.
🛑 The result? Temporary gains in reading achievement dissipate, leaving schools back at square one.
To break this cycle, strong local expertise and leadership structures must be built from the start. A literacy initiative can survive beyond its initial funding if:
✔ It is led by trained staff who own the work.
✔ Administrators prioritize it as part of long-term planning.
✔ The program is woven into the school culture rather than being treated as an “extra.”
However, if all knowledge and leadership remain with outside consultants or a single grant-funded specialist, the initiative is at high risk of withering when those supports disappear.
Building Local Capacity: The Reading Ways “SCALE” Model
At Reading Ways, we combat this problem by building local capacity from the outset. Our SCALE model is designed to develop site-based leadership, ensuring that literacy work continues well beyond the funding cycle.
We piloted a decentralized approach in 17 secondary schools. The results were clear: teacher engagement rose when local teacher-leaders, rather than outside experts, became the face of the work.
Rather than relying on external literacy coaches, we train and support site-based literacy leaders within each school. These may be:
- Teachers given a reduced schedule to lead literacy initiatives.
- Existing literacy coaches or instructional specialists.
- A cross-disciplinary team of educators focused on content-area literacy.
We provide your staff with the technology tools, training and support to lead this work locally. This distributed team approach ensures that multiple people share responsibility, reducing reliance on external experts.
Delegation doesn’t mean abandoning support. We provide:
✅ Online resources (toolkits, videos, content-specific literacy materials).
✅ Monthly cross-district coaching calls to troubleshoot challenges and share best practices.
✅ On-demand mentoring to help site leaders guide professional learning communities (PLCs).
This layered support turns professional learning into an ongoing process, not just a one-time training.
🔹 Progressively Lower-Cost Access
We reduce costs over time to prevent sustainability issues:
- Phase 1: Schools receive full service (trainings, coaching, and intensive mentoring).
- Phase 2: Site leaders take charge, supported by self-paced online courses and asynchronous digital resources.
- Phase 3: Schools retain low-cost access to Reading Ways' core tools without ongoing heavy investment.
By scaffolding down external support, we ensure long-term sustainability.
Delegation Requires Visibility: Overcoming the “Invisible” Barrier
Many school leaders hesitate to delegate because they fear losing control. How do you know if:
📊 Teachers are actively engaging with literacy strategies?
📊 Site leaders are running PLC meetings?
📊 Implementation is happening across all departments?
Reading Ways solves this by providing digital dashboards and implementation data.
With real-time insights, district and school leaders can:
✅ See which teachers are using professional learning tools.
✅ Identify where support is needed before issues arise.
✅ Adjust course quickly to sustain momentum.
This “arms-length visibility” gives leaders confidence to delegate, without micromanaging.
Conclusion: Delegated Leadership for Lasting Literacy Gains
📌 Key Takeaways:
✔️ Small, dynamic teams with delegated leadership sustain literacy efforts.
✔️ Investing in local capacity builds long-term success.
✔️ Structured mentoring, digital access, and tracking tools enable sustainability.
Delegation isn’t just about efficiency—it’s the foundation for sustaining adolescent literacy programs.
📚 References
Lawrence, J. F., Crosson, A. C., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Word Generation randomized trial: Discussion mediates the impact of program treatment on academic word learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 750-786. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485
Lawrence, J. F., Francis, D., Paré-Blagoev, J., & Snow, C. E. (2017). The Poor Get Richer: Heterogeneity in the Efficacy of a School-Level Intervention for Academic Language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(4), 767-793. doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1237596
Lin, A. R., Lawrence, J. F., Snow, C. E., & Taylor, K. S. (2016). Assessing adolescents’ communicative self-efficacy. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(3), 316–343.
Morsy, L., Kieffer, M., & Snow, C. (2010). Measure for measure. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap. Carnegie Corporation of New York.