Literacy In Pentucket - A Look Back and a Peek Ahead

As the school year winds down, we look forward to relaxing and recharging over the summer, but it’s also a great time to reflect. This June provides an even greater opportunity for me to reflect before I move on to the role of Superintendent in another district. I have been at Pentucket for 8 years and early in my tenure  we started addressing literacy instruction, systems, curriculum and assessment. The changes have been dramatic but they did not all come at once and nor was there a single thing that anyone could point to as the biggest or best change. In fact, the improved outcomes for students occurred because of the intersection of multiple changes. One thing would not be effective without the other, similarly, outdated practices, would undermine new evidence based ones. The system needed to change.

In 2017, the district ranked in the 32nd percentile for ELA performance in MA. Pentucket had long been thought of as a high performing district. There was no shortage of talented teachers, committed staff and hard working students, we had just gotten away from a clear, coherent approach to teaching students how to read. Re-focusing our efforts, providing varying levels of professional development and investing in the tools teachers needed, set a new standard for how we would approach teaching reading. By 2023, the district was in the 69th percentile in MA. In 2025, the district was honored by MA DESE for being one of only a few districts to outperform their pre-pandemic levels on the MCAS. 

Our results however could not only be measured with state assessment scores. We needed to know when students were in Kindergarten if our efforts were effective. We looked back and started the work to improve early literacy outcomes before the pandemic. The improvements were observed early on, but even more so as the years went by. In 2019, only 58% of our K-3 students were deemed proficient at the end of year. As the changes we made started to take hold, that number began to increase, even as many schools struggled to return to a normal sense of instruction following the disruptions of the pandemic. In the spring of 2026, 81% of the students in K-3 demonstrate the foundational skills to make them a proficient reader.

Intentional Steps - Impactful Outcomes

In reflection, some of the highlights demonstrate that there were intentional changes, but also we can see impactful changes that occurred as a result of being responsive. We have data to help us, and we spent time observing classrooms and involving teachers in dialogue as evidenced by:

• A commitment to evidence-based early literacy instruction, knowing that data shows how critical it is for students to “catch up” in K-2

• A commitment to grade level and complex text with High Quality Curriculum Materials was central to ensuring all students were provided access. This served as the basis of equity.

• A commitment to making sure there was a coherent approach so nothing was left to chance for each student’s literacy experience. The curriculum and instructional practices were the baseline everyone could expect.

• Instructional routines that supported access to understanding complex text were implemented. These included paragraph shrinking, connecting syntax from the text, explicitly teaching vocabulary from the text, and teaching language structures from the text. 

• Through Wit and Wisdom, as challenging as some of the texts were for some students, we remained committed to having students speaking, listening, reading and writing about the texts each day.  

• Our writing instruction intentionally shifted from a workshop model on varying and random topics to writing about the volume of conceptually related texts students were reading. We also provided professional development using such tools as the Writing Revolution and SRSD methods.

• Our students were building background knowledge and we were giving kids something meaningful to talk and write about. Because it was a coherent curriculum, they all experienced the texts and content and can expand their own thinking and ideas with each other. 

• The move away from using Leveled Texts and Leveled assessments made sure our students were not being held back from complex text. Using a more predictive assessment that informed teachers on various skills, we could address specific needs through targeted instruction. 

• Students who needed more - got more. Students who needed something specific, got that. “Dosage” became a key factor. A model of schedules, data, instruction and staffing patterns set up the idea of annual growth for all and catch up growth for those who were behind. 

As professionals, we learned a great deal too. Systems change is hard and slow. We also had staff who had adhered to certain ways of teaching reading for many years. While they undoubtedly saw success, the data was demonstrating that not enough students were gaining the skills they needed. Shifting away from certain practices you have long held as “good teaching” is not easy. Teaching is an immensely personal job. These changes were particularly challenging.

We proudly hosted 41 site visits from schools, districts and organizations in the last 8 years. With each visit, we could reflect with the school about the work that had been done to lead up to where we were at that point. The visits became more about the behind the scenes work to help support staff and what structures needed to change, like schedules and data use, that helped teachers be so successful.

Piloting UFLI

Even in the 8th year of this work, we continue to have deep and meaningful conversations with staff about critical topics, where some are demonstrating a new understanding after years of work. This led to a pilot of UFLI Foundations to help us address a persistent hurdle that we could not seem to get over. Despite our students in Grades K-2 dramatically improving their decoding and fluency skills from 2018, too many were still not fluent enough and each fall, too many students seemed to slip back and need more targeted instruction in the fall. When looking at data from the upper grades, we knew that the key would be solidifying students’ skills in the early grades to ensure they were able to maintain proficiency as they got older. What looked like an upper grade problem, was really highlighting areas of growth in grades K-2. 

After reflecting on our curriculum, we knew students could likely move faster through decoding instruction and handle more fluency building work. This would result in more stable skills upon returning to school each fall. In the 2024-25 school year we began a pilot of The University of Florida Literacy Institute- UFLI Foundations, a foundational skills program. The district had been using Fundations for the past 7 years. The initial success from the pilot with a few classrooms resulted in an expanded pilot in 2025-26 where we saw over 90% of our K-2 classrooms shift to using UFLI.  

Data from K-2 UFLI

Our early pilot during the 2024-25 school year showed that students in second grade had made remarkable gains. We saw a 27% gain in ORF after implementing UFLI and a 31% gain in overall composite score. For first graders, those classrooms that used UFLI saw a much higher rate of improvement than those that used Fundations. It was this early success with some skills that we had a difficult time moving for several years that led to the expanded pilot. But even before we could analyze data from this year, we were most curious to see if the student gains from the year prior were maintained in the start of the following year. This was really our test.

For two years in a row, prior to this year, we would see 25% of the 2nd graders who had scored at or above the benchmark in first grade - drop down below that in the fall when they returned for 2nd grade. That number, plus the 20% or so who had yet to get to the grade level benchmark meant that each year we were starting with 35-40% of 2nd graders needing more targeted supports or intervention. 

• In the fall this year, the UFLI groups saw 83% carrying over their Meeting or Exceeding benchmark score from the spring; 17% did not and would require more targeted instruction.

• The FUNdations group: 75% carried over; 25% did not. This data was exactly what had been happening for the two years prior.

There are a few key differences between the two curricula that may have contributed to this change in outcomes. For one, the scope and sequence of UFLI moves far more quickly than Fundations, exposing students to more complex phonics patterns necessary for fluent decoding and reading. These were often skills they never received instruction on via Fundations, yet were absolutely critical to learning to decode on grade level. Second, teacher knowledge about how to teach early literacy effectively likely contributed to this growth. UFLI is an educative curriculum. This means that simply using the materials and lesson structure added to the professional knowledge and skills in key areas such as the process of reading acquisition, key linguistic elements necessary for reading, and evidence-based instructional methods that promote reading proficiency. Staff were often engaged in high level conversations around the nuances to teaching reading that were unprecedented. Finally, with the shift in curricula came a shift in the types of “practice” the students were engaged with. UFLI offers an abundance of opportunities to practice and apply the skills students are taught, like roll-and-reads, premade games, and decodable passages aligned to the scope and sequence. This practice, particularly around connected text, removed the heavy lift of prep and planning of “activities” from teachers’ plates, offering meaningful and engaging practice opportunities to students that ultimately led to higher proficiency.

What are the outcomes in the expanded pilot?

We have crossed over the 80% at or above benchmark for Oral Reading Fluency at the end of first grade. This is a critical data point. From what we can see, we believe the vast majority of those students will keep that skill when they enter second grade. This frees up instructional time and resources to focus only on the students who need it. It gives teachers far more flexibility to move even faster in second grade, having students read deeper into text and tackle more complex aspects of literacy. 

For 81% of first graders to be reading fluently at this point, we are thrilled.

The improvements also represent the highest level of improvement from the fall to the spring since the pandemic. The growth is impressive and it simply gives more kids access to more texts.

The level of coherence around instruction has also been a major focus. Ensuring a student is taught to read using high quality materials and evidence based approaches that are responsive to needs shouldn’t matter which school a child attends or be left to chance for which teacher a child gets. The first grade reading fluency data at the end of the 2025-26 school year is not only the highest it has ever been, there is virtually no difference between the schools. All are performing very well.

Individual Student “trajectory changing” growth

While our big systems level changes are measured in the data depicted above, we also have made some intentional shifts in how we support individual students. With a focus on creating a system that works to ensure all students make a year’s growth each year in school, we also need the ability to “catch” kids up who may be behind. Closing the gap is especially important in the early grades. We use numerous approaches to give kids more time, more instruction, use a smaller group, provide more explicit and specific instruction and closely monitor their progress, adjusting even more when needed.

For most students, this approach is very impactful. Below is a graph that shows how a student made that “catch up” growth. While in the course of the year, the student may not have made their way to being at benchmark for oral reading fluency, they are so much closer at the end of the year than they were at the start of the year. For a student who had previously experienced an inconsistent instructional approach in grades K and 1, this progress was due to them being provided with additional, intensive and targeted instruction that is part of a coherent approach. In fact, the trendline would suggest their trajectory would have them on grade level in the fall of the following year. This improvement is equivalent to two years of growth in just one year.  

EBLI vs OG/Wilson approach - mastery based 

Of all the work we have done focused on literacy, maybe the most intriguing is inclusion of using EBLI - Evidenced Based Literacy Instruction as an alternative attentive program from Wilson or Orton-Gillingham. Our approach to providing intensive intervention as early as possible affords us  the opportunity to evaluate how effective and efficient we are with students. Focusing on “dosage” is the best way to describe our work in Kindergarten through grade 2. If all students are getting 60 minutes per day of direct and explicit instruction in the whole class setting - for students who are behind - they are going to need more. Whether it is from the classroom teacher, a reading specialist or a special education teacher, some students will need 90 minutes or even 120 minutes. The problem lies when we do that for 2 plus years and the student is making progress, but is not any closer to actually closing the gap to grade level proficiency. In that case, we really need to examine “what and how” we are teaching rather than “how much”.

Most direct and explicit reading programs - including Fundations, which we have used for many years, and UFLI, are built on the Orton-Gillingham methodology of teaching sounds and matching them to print. For many years, the thinking has been that more intensive programs like Wilson or an intensive Orton-Gillingham approach are what was needed to ensure students who struggle are able to be taught and  master each and every sound and print combination so they successfully decode words they encounter. This can be a slow process for some students, especially those identified as having dyslexia. EBLI, though, provides an option for direct and explicit instruction, but does not center the mastery of each letter and sound combination. But rather focuses on the natural sounds we produce and the varying ways we can create them, or spell them. It is known as a linguistic phonics program that some people will simply call "speech to print” as opposed to “print to speech”. This quick video provides a succinct explanation of the differences.

We have trained over 20 staff to use EBLI and will now deploy it as a possible solution when we recognize a student is progressing at a slower pace than what we would like to see. While we still use Wilson or OG for students, we have another tool and one that is showing great promise, including in this recent study conducted at a school in Chicago that solely focuses on students with language based learning disabilities. 

What’s next?

The district will fully transition to using UFLI as the foundational skill program in the 26-27 school year. Other than that change, I would anticipate much of the same with a focus in getting kids to read more, read grade level and complex text and getting kids to write and talk about what they have read. The district will use a new digital based dashboard for the DIBELS 8 literacy screener next year, but that is likely to provide even better data analysis and accessibility for teachers and leaders.

The district will remain focused on improving outcomes for all of the students. That includes students who are already demonstrating great skill, and we want to see them immerse themselves even more reading and writing. The systems in place are meant to sustain themselves, but with obvious attention from the knowledgeable staff. Pentucket will continue to place the teaching of reading at the forefront of what the district values and prioritizes. 

Dr. Brent ConwayAssistant Superintendent

Jen Hogan M.Ed, Ed.S.

Director of Elementary Literacy and Curriculum