Although schools nationwide have shifted their literacy efforts to focus on one specific method of learning, Park County School District 1 is sticking with a comprehensive approach that pulls effective aspects from multiple curriculum and educational sources, elementary principals and instructional facilitators say.

“You have to be responsive, to teach a kid; you have to learn many ways. And we have kids all across the continuum of where they're at with reading,” Parkside Elementary School Principal Jason Hillman said at a Sept. 24 school board meeting. “And if one thing doesn't work, you have to go to the next, and you have to go to the next.”

Hillman said Powell schools are high performing in reading, pointing out that all three elementary schools have had above average proficiencies for the past three years in third through fifth grade WYTOPP scores. Last year’s third, fourth and fifth graders scored 12, 15 and 20 points higher than the state level in reading, respectively.

The other district frequently mentioned as a leader in literacy is Sheridan 2, which has the same intervention system as Powell. It’s Reading Recovery-based and uses a comprehensive approach, Hillman said. Teton County School District 1, another top performer in literacy, adopts a similar approach.

While the comprehensive approach is effective, it’s not the only one utilized in the state or nation. Powell’s elementary school principals and instructional facilitators explained why they teach the way they do while also looking at Science of Reading. The method has gained traction, with many states adopting its approach including, up to a point, Wyoming. 

Science of Reading “advocates for explicit systematic phonics instruction as the answer to teaching reading,” Southside Elementary School Principal Scott Schiller said. 

“We're seeing that all across the country,” Schiller said. “We’re seeing it in different school districts in Wyoming, we're seeing it as presented by our own Department of Ed in some of the things that they make available …”

Science of Reading gained popularity after what some have coined the “Mississippi Miracle,” when Mississippi schools implemented the approach and saw an increase in student performance. But Schiller noted the results have had both detractors and supporters. Some national coverage of the debate has described it as a “reading war.”

In his remarks last week, Schiller cited research from “Fact-Checking the Science of Reading: Opening Up the Conversation” by Robert James Tierney and P. David Pearson, who conducted a meta-analysis of studies done on the effectiveness of Science of Reading.

Tierney and Pearson’s book found young students who use this style of instruction show moderate improvement but only when they’re reading words in isolation, Schiller said; the effect on comprehension is described as inconsistent and small.

“They spend a lot of time in this book talking about, really, [that] what we're looking for for students in the end is that they can read and comprehend and understand,” he said.

Hillman said students are now given an assessment that in part asks kids to read as quickly as possible.

“And if they're reading and it doesn't make sense to them, they are essentially punished for stopping going back and making it make sense,” he added. “Did you know we do that? Should we do that? Should a kid be taught not to go back and glean meaning from text, should they be taught to read fast instead? Should we be legislated into doing that? No? We might be.”

At least 22 states have adopted legislation related to reading that’s similar to Mississippi’s, said Westside Elementary School Principal Angela Woyak. That includes Wyoming, to an extent. Following 2022 reading legislation, the Wyoming Department of Education created a new set of rules, titled as Chapter 56. They basically tell schools that core instruction and assessment need to be multi-tiered, with multiple levels of instruction provided to students in a variety of proficiency levels.

Powell’s multi-tiered system of literacy instruction which now includes some Science of Reading based curriculum starts with access to “essential literacy instruction for all students,” according to a provided diagram. This includes things like interactive read-alouds, reading and writing mini-lessons, guided reading, interactive writing and more.

This is followed by “Additional time and support to learn essential literacy strategies,” which includes things like leveled interventions and finally “Intensive remediation in literacy,” which involves Reading Recovery.

Hillman noted that it does have its positives but the educators at last week’s meeting contended that a comprehensive approach benefits students. 

“We owe it to our kids to take the best comprehensive approach we can and help them all become readers. That’s what we have to do,” Hillman said. “I want our focus to be there, not trying to discredit something, because there’s no good that comes from that.”

Among other requirements, Chapter 56 requires all teachers and staff involved with the education of K-3 students to have 3.5 hours of professional development annually related to literacy.

The legislation also outlines how many hours some teachers or educators have to have professional development in basic methods instruction, literacy assessment training and training in interventions.

Districts have been given three years to roll this out, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning Jason Sleep explained in an interview. PCSD1 has complied with Chapter 56 within the past two years, Sleep said, actually going beyond the state’s requirements while sticking to the comprehensive learning approach.

Powell schools are complying with Chapter 56 and are currently in the second year of implementing the training, while still maintaining their comprehensive learning model. 

Sleep said the district’s comprehensive plan and the Science of Reading elements work well together.

“I don't think you should take one side or the other, like the state has,” Sleep said. “We just decided we're going to stay with … our core reading curriculum, and then as we assess kids and we see different challenges, then we start customizing it to the kids.”

The Wyoming Department of Education approved the district’s compliance with Chapter 56 last year, but with recommendations that Powell schools add more Science of Reading-based professional development, Sleep said. 

“So even though we were top three four in the state in reading up with Sheridan — who does the same program that we do — all of the training that we have done still didn't meet muster at the state level,” he said.

At last week’s board meeting, Hillman expressed appreciation to Sleep, Superintendent Jay Curtis and the board for their support.

“It would be pretty easy to cave to some of the pressure right now,” Hillman said, adding that the trust being given to Powell educators “speaks volumes.”