How schools can support teenage literacy

After six years of intense literacy training in primary schools, the assumption of the system is that the vast majority of children should be able to read and write to a level that means they can access the secondary curriculum.

The reality, however, is that a significant minority do not reach that standard. And what happens to those pupils next is something researchers and teachers are desperately trying to address.

Jessie Ricketts, director of the Language and Reading Acquisition Lab at Royal Holloway, University of London, is leading the way in this area.

Together with a group of teachers, she is on a mission to help those teenagers with literacy issues who often go unnoticed, unhelped or are considered a lost cause during their secondary education.

She talks to Jessica Powell about the problems with literacy in secondary schools and what needs to happen to solve them.

• How do we solve the primary school literacy problem?
• EYFS: How to improve low-level literacy
• Leading literacy framework: What teachers need to know

Jessica Powell: Most people think that every pupil should start secondary school with a good level of literacy. Teachers know that this isn’t always happening. But just how big a problem is it?

Jessie Ricketts: It’s big. International reading tests such as Pisa (the Programme for International Student Assessment) show that, among 15-year-olds in England, about 17 per cent really struggle with reading. They might, for example, find it hard to understand an advert on a train or a warning sign in a science classroom. It’s a real concern: these pupils will struggle to access the curriculum.

To put this in context, my research shows that 10 per cent of 12- to 14-year-olds are reading at the level you’d expect of a typical six- to nine-year-old. And we know that kids who leave school without solid literacy skills have poorer outcomes in health, wellbeing, employment and financial security.

Do we know why these children don’t reach the level expected in literacy?

There’s this perception outside education that if reading and writing has not been “fixed” by the end of primary, then it’s the fault of teachers. But reading and writing are incredibly complex, and we continue to learn across our whole lifespan.

Just think - to even begin to read this, you need to know the conventions of print (that English is read left to right, top to bottom); be able to see and recognise symbols on the page; to link letters to sounds and put them together to make words; to know what those words mean and to understand grammar to make sense of how it all fits together in a meaningful sentence.

For most of us who can read and write well, it feels intuitive. Sometimes we need to step back and think “what am I actually doing?” to remember how complex it is.

Do you think that complexity is often overlooked in transition arrangements between primary and secondary? The focus is usually on pastoral matters but the curriculum leap is a big one, isn’t it?

It is. Oxford University Press (OUP) published a report last year, showing that teachers are really concerned about how transitioning to secondary impacts those with poor vocabulary.

One of the issues is that, when children move from primary to secondary, the environment changes dramatically.

Research has shown that pupils are exposed to three to four times more language at secondary than at primary. Plus, suddenly, they’re encountering more complex, technical texts and lots of specialist vocabulary - consider “homeostasis” and “interquartile ranges”.

The really confusing thing is that words have different meanings in different lessons with different teachers. For example, a “prime” number in maths is different to a “prime” character in English.

So, does this lead to children presenting with difficulties that would not have been spotted at primary school?

You can get “late-emerging” poor readers - they’ve coped until now but, when texts become more complex, contain loads of words they don’t know and require them to make inferences based on knowledge they don’t have, they fall behind.

Plus, in secondary, kids are increasingly expected to learn independently through reading. And when it comes to demonstrating their knowledge in, say, GCSEs, doing well depends heavily on their being able to express themselves in writing.

So, literacy is just as important in secondary but does not get the specialist tuition it does at primary?

Yes, it’s obvious that language and literacy skills are as important in secondary school as they are at primary. But when I talk to secondary teachers, they say that more continuing professional development is needed for them to help their students - and they need more age-appropriate materials. I’ve come across secondary schools using materials with teenagers that were designed for young children - not because they think it’s appropriate but simply because that’s all they have (although things do seem to be improving).

English teachers often lament that, in secondary schools, they are presumed to be the ones to intervene here: that only the English department needs to be concerned about those struggling with literacy.

That’s unfortunate because we’re not talking about learning literary devices in Shakespeare: some students still need to develop basic skills. They’ll be finding it very effortful to read, using all their mental capacity trying to get at the words and meaning, not leaving much for learning. So, this isn’t just an “English-class issue”.

If we’ve got someone whose reading skill is like that of a six-year-old, how on earth will they access the Year 9 curriculum, whatever the subject? They might be brilliant at science but if they can’t read an exam question then they won’t succeed.

Is there an evidence gap here, too? How much research is going on around literacy and adolescents?

Most of the research into literacy learning - and most of the attention from an education policy point of view - has been on primary. Even when I wrote a paper recently, Reading and Oral Vocabulary Development in Early Adolescence, it took me a while to get it published because I had reviewers saying, “why would you even study this age group? There’s nothing interesting going on here”.

What is going on in those years? Is progress being made?

The research I did was working with the same kids every year for three years: Years 7, 8 and 9. We measured their word reading, vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. There’s this assumption that nothing is happening in that period in terms of development of literacy skills but that’s not what we found.

Things weren’t changing as dramatically as in primary. But they were changing in a statistically significant way. And we don’t know how big the change could be if we provided as much support to secondary pupils as they receive in primary.

That sounds really promising…

It is, and there is more good news. In the study, we were looking for evidence of the “Matthew effect”. The term is used to refer to accumulated advantage, where the “rich” get richer and the “poor” get poorer (the “Matthew” bit is a reference from the Bible).

In reading terms, it would mean that those children who start off with better ability (“are richer” ) make faster gains than those starting with lower ability. If you imagine a distribution of pupils’ abilities, then you’d see the gap getting wider over time. But in my study, there was no evidence of it. If anything, the distribution was narrowing slightly.

So, the poorer readers were catching up?

Yes. Although, there’s a slight caveat because there are natural ceilings and those children at the top end are closer to that limit.

But, still, if the gap is narrowing, that means you could close it, right?

No. The idea of closing gaps is totally bizarre. It’s important to think about reducing gaps but we’re human - there’s always going to be a spread of ability. What good teaching can do is shift the whole distribution up so more pupils meet minimum targets - we’ve seen this in phonics teaching and assessment in primary. It would be great to see similar work to ensure more older children meet a minimum target for reading and writing.

How much of a challenge is it for secondary teachers to tackle this?

One thing my study showed really clearly was the sheer variation there is among secondary students, which must be an enormous challenge for teachers.

It’s also really hard for secondary teachers to be aware of where their pupils are. In primary, teachers work with the same children all day. In secondary, teachers teach more pupils and get relatively brief periods with them.

To make things even trickier, there are probably some kids really struggling who fly under the radar. Some will just be really quiet. For others, their struggle might manifest with behavioural issues when they get frustrated because they don’t understand.

What is happening at the moment for these students?

Lots is going on but we don’t have good evidence on what works best. One common focus for secondary teachers is vocabulary. A useful distinction is to think about what have been called tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 words.

Tier 1 vocab is everyday language. Tier 3 is subject-specific vocab - say, “photosynthesis” or “Pythagoras”. Tier 2 words are those that operate across disciplines, so words such as “analyse” or “evaluate”.

In my experience, secondary teachers tend to assume that tier 1 vocabulary is in place. They know they need to teach the tier 3 vocabulary. But what the OUP report suggests is that we need to raise awareness of the need to teach tier 2 words. These words are often the glue that sticks everything together.

What’s even trickier is there are lots of what are called “false friends” in tier 2 vocab - words that mean different things in different contexts.

For example, being asked to “evaluate” a historical text might require you to look at the validity of sources, check for anachronisms and so on, whereas “evaluating” a piece of poetry might mean giving more of a personal opinion.

So, if teachers aren’t explaining these words in context, it’s something kids can really fall down on.

Is that not happening, that explanation process?

It’s difficult. If you’re very used to the meaning of certain terms in your discipline, it can be hard to remember that not everyone will be on the same page. I find this in my own teaching of undergraduates - and I am very attuned to thinking about language and literacy abilities.

And training is an issue. Primary teachers tend to have a lot more training on all this and so more opportunities to think about what the challenges might be.

OK, in a dream world, what would we be doing differently?

We need to focus more energy on actively teaching language and literacy skills in secondary. This will benefit all pupils.

Then there are students who will need support in the basics. Part of the solution is regular assessment to find out who these kids actually are and what they find difficult so we can target precious resources.

How would we teach reading and writing in secondary, then?

To be honest, we don’t really know. Remember that research black hole around secondary literacy?

One guess is we should continue to do roughly what we’re doing in primary. But there are also differences in the secondary environment that we need to acknowledge.

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) published a guidance report in 2019, Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools, which I contributed to. It gives seven practical recommendations for secondary teachers, which is a good starting point (as is the OUP report).

One thing it highlights is the need to raise awareness among all secondary teachers, so that they recognise literacy skills as something they should be working on with their pupils, whatever the subject.

So, even maths teachers should be teaching language and literacy?

To some degree, yes - all secondary teachers need to understand the basics of how students learn to read and write, and common barriers. Many probably really want to! The EEF report talks about “disciplinary literacy” - the ways reading and writing skills required are different for different subjects.

For example, if you’re reading a biology textbook, you probably don’t need to give the author much thought but if you’re reading a work of fiction, you do.

Take your maths teacher - they might explain vocabulary or give students different comprehension techniques to understand a maths problem.

But do they know how to do that? Do they know what ‘different comprehension techniques’ are?

Quite possibly not. They really don’t get that training. So CPD is key. But, again, the EEF guidance has some good starting points.

For example, school departments could spend some time thinking about what’s unique about their subject in terms of reading, writing, speaking and listening, and then develop subject-specific literacy plans. More cross-disciplinary collaboration could help, too. Perhaps if science and music teachers got together, they’d notice just how different their ideas of “volume” and “organ” are - and the possible stumbling block that this creates for students.

I think it’s also about creating a shame-free culture. You could have a “word box” in classrooms. If a pupil comes across a word they don’t know, they write it down (as best they can) and put it in the box anonymously for the teacher to explain.

Is there enough time in the curriculum to do this, though?

I really appreciate the challenge, but what is the purpose of education if not to develop pupils who can cope with everyday tasks, not to mention the curriculum? And for this, they need basic literacy.

In the EEF report, the chief executive at the time, Sir Kevan Collins (who has since left), notes: “Secondary school teachers should ask not what they can do for literacy but what literacy can do for them.”

But, of course, they need training, support and resources.

OK, so everyone does a bit more training and they’re sorted?

We also need to think about the fact that, by the time kids with literacy issues get to secondary school, they’ve been failing to read and write effectively for years. And that’s another big hole in the research - how does that accumulated sense of failure interact with the difficulty itself?

It’s OK not to be able to read in Reception but, when you get to Year 8, it’s becoming embarrassing. You might rather not do it at all than do it badly.

What’s the answer, then?

One option could be to simplify the language and literacy demands on students. But the problem is, you might end up not giving them the curriculum they need.

Also, I think part of the role of education is to teach children to be independent learners - not just spoon feeding them. But that does require a certain level of skill as well as motivation. But, again, motivation is not something that’s been studied much.

So, would reading for pleasure help? That is a big focus in primary and secondary schools.

We know students’ interest in reading for pleasure tends to drop off in adolescence. Yet if they continued to read more, it would make a real difference. Fiction, particularly, is really important as you encounter a much more diverse range of words in diverse contexts. I have a project under way about encouraging teens to read more. But that’s been halted by Covid-19.

Speaking of which, what impact is the pandemic going to have on all this?

Well, missing school will be a challenge for everyone. But if there’s a mismatch between the language you’re using outside of school and the language you’re expected to use within school (owing to a difference in formality, difference in dialect, English not being the primary language at home, etc) - you’ve got an additional challenge. You won’t be practising “school language” at home.

So, what can we do when schools reopen for everyone?

The good news is that more than 70 per cent of teachers believe addressing pupils’ vocabulary gap when they return would be a high priority in their school.

Plus, with the likes of footballer Marcus Rashford - who launched a book club during the pandemic to provide free books for children from underprivileged backgrounds - getting behind the problem, things may be looking up.

Rashford has said that he “only started reading at 17, and it completely changed my outlook and mentality”. Hopefully, teens reading that, who look up to him, will be inspired to pick up a book themselves.

Jessica Powell is a freelance journalist

This article originally appeared in the 19 February 2021 issue under the headline “How do we bridge the secondary literacy gap”.