How to Run a Whole-School English Reading Program

Most reading programs start with one teacher who cares. That works for one class. It often does not survive the move to twenty classes, because the program ran on that teacher's own effort. This article covers the step from one class to the whole school. It draws on research about putting new practices into schools, most of it from outside language teaching. It covers who leads, who owns the program, where the time comes from, how staff are trained, what everyone records and when to review.

What makes a reading program whole-school?

A whole-school reading program runs the same way in every class and does not depend on any one teacher. It has six parts: backing from leaders, one named owner, shared time in every timetable, training with follow-up, one common record, and fixed review points. Each part is there so the program survives a busy term or a teacher leaving.

The sections below take the parts in turn, with what research says about each. If you have not yet started with one class, begin with How to Launch a School Reading Program in One Day.

What implementation research says about going whole-school

Sharples, Albers, Fraser and Kime (2019) wrote the Education Endowment Foundation's guide to implementation in schools. They describe implementation as a process in four stages: explore, prepare, deliver and sustain. They write that it is not unusual to spend two to four years implementing a complex, whole-school initiative.

They draw a practical lesson from that timescale. Schools should probably make fewer, but more strategic, choices and pursue them diligently. A whole-school reading program is one such choice, and it competes for time with every other initiative.

Fullan (2007) organises his account of educational change around initiation, implementation and continuation. His book gives separate chapters to the teacher, the principal and the professional learning of educators. For a reading program, the lesson is simple. The decision to start is only the first phase.

Durlak and DuPre (2008) reviewed over 500 quantitative studies of prevention and health promotion programs. They found strong support for the conclusion that the level of implementation affects outcomes. They also identified at least 23 contextual factors that influence implementation, including how organisations function and the training staff receive.

None of these sources studied English reading programs. They describe how change in schools and similar programs tends to go. Treat them as guidance on process, not as evidence about reading.

Leadership and one named owner

Sharples and colleagues (2019) give school leaders a central role in implementation. Leaders plan, resource, monitor and refine a change, and they set a climate in which staff feel trusted to try new things. The guide also recommends leadership that is dedicated but distributed, often through an implementation team.

For a reading program, that means two roles. A senior leader makes reading a requirement and protects its time. One named owner runs it day to day, helped by a small team, such as one teacher from each grade.

Robb and Kano (2013) show what backing from leaders can do at scale. At a Japanese university, more than 2,000 first-year students were required to read graded readers outside class. Reading scores rose significantly compared with the previous year's cohort. The authors give four reasons for the program's success:

• The administration required the reading across the whole General English curriculum.
• Online quizzes confirmed the reading, so teachers did not have to.
• The administration handled the reading grade and passed it to teachers.
• The library bought enough graded readers and marked their level with coloured labels.

The authors add cautions. The gain may come from the extra hours spent with English, not from extensive reading as such. Only about 70% of students took a quiz on even one book. And these were university students, not school pupils.

Macalister (2010) points the same way from the other side. Teachers in his study believed in extensive reading but did not generally include it. He concludes that it needs promoting through teacher education, research, changes in course design, awareness among administrators and managers, and better resources. Much of that list is work for leaders.

Shared time: where the reading happens

Every class needs a fixed reading slot, and the slot needs protecting. Robb and Kano (2013) distinguish two ways of finding the time. Replacement reading takes the place of another classroom activity. Additive reading adds extra time, usually outside class hours.

They conclude that additive reading can be widely implemented only with a way of holding students accountable. That check must not add to teachers' workload or unduly intrude on class time. For a school the choice is real. Reading in class is easier to protect. Reading at home adds volume, but it needs a light, reliable check.

Time alone is not enough. Quigley and Coleman (2019) wrote the EEF's guidance on literacy in secondary schools. They note that evaluations of silent reading programs have shown inconsistent effects on student outcomes and motivation. They do not tell schools to stop whole-school approaches. They ask schools to think carefully about how such approaches are implemented.

Their guidance was written for secondary schools in England and covers literacy across subjects, not reading in a foreign language. Still, the warning transfers. A shared slot works when pupils have texts at the right level, a short check afterwards and a teacher who keeps track.

Training every teacher, then supporting them

Sharples and colleagues (2019) divide professional development into up-front training and follow-on coaching. A common mistake, they write, is to provide the training with little or no follow-on support. They report that the most effective professional development lasts at least two terms, and often longer.

Macalister and Nation (2020) treat staff development as part of curriculum design. Their handbook has chapters on introducing change and on planning an in-service course. A year of support for a reading program might look like this. It is an example, not a prescription.

1. Start of term: a one-hour session on the routine, judging level and using the record.
2. Weeks 3 and 4: the owner or a grade lead watches part of a session in each class.
3. Every two weeks: a 15-minute check-in for each grade team.
4. Each term: one peer visit per teacher to a colleague's reading session.
5. New staff: a short induction before their first session.

Sharples and colleagues (2019) also advise knowing where to be tight and where to be loose. Agree the few things every class does the same way. In a reading program, that might be the weekly slot, texts at the right level, the weekly record and a short check after each text. Leave the rest to the teacher.

One common record for every class

A common record lets leaders compare classes and spot pupils who have stopped reading. Keep it short, so teachers actually fill it in. For each pupil, record the same few things each week:

• sessions attended;
• texts finished;
• current level;
• the result of the short check after each text.

Sharples and colleagues (2019) suggest defining implementation outcomes and monitoring them. The table turns their examples into questions for a reading program.

For reading measures such as level changes and words retained, see KPIs & Metrics for a School Reading Program.

Review points, and growing grade by grade

Grow the program in steps, and review before each one. Sharples and colleagues (2019) advise treating scale-up as a new implementation process. It should start with a thorough review of the previous implementation and the outcomes it achieved. They also advise planning for staff turnover from the outset.

A common sequence runs like this. It comes from practice, and the timing will differ between schools.

• First term: one class or one grade, with a named owner and the common record. How to Run a Pilot of a Reading Platform covers a short first trial.
• Second term: add the next grade, after a review of the first.
• Second year: every grade, with a team of grade leads around the owner.

Expect some resistance. Robb and Kano (2013) note that a method applied across a whole curriculum is unlikely to win the enthusiasm of every busy teacher. They also report that many of their teachers became converts after seeing the effect of extensive reading on their students. So show teachers early results from their own pupils.

For the plan inside each grade, with level targets and checkpoints, see How to Plan a Reading Program Across a School Year.

How iRead handles this

In iRead, admins or teachers publish several sessions for each unit, and each student joins the one they can attend. Attendance is recorded automatically, and a quiz runs after every session. Teachers see retention per word, per game and per class. School leaders see, by class, grade and term, the levels reached, words retained and stories completed. A school can run a free pilot with one class for 4 to 6 weeks before any school-wide decision.

Key takeaway

Treat the move to the whole school as a new rollout, not a copy of the pilot. Name the owner, protect the slot, support teachers after training, keep one record and review before each step up.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

1. Sharples, J., Albers, B., Fraser, S., & Kime, S. (2019). Putting Evidence to Work: A School's Guide to Implementation. Guidance Report (2nd ed.). Education Endowment Foundation, London. d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/eef-guidance-reports/implementation/EEF_Implementation_Guidance_Report_2019.pdf
2. Quigley, A., & Coleman, R. (2019). Improving Literacy in Secondary Schools: Guidance Report. Education Endowment Foundation, London. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612217.pdf
3. Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press, New York. www.tcpress.com/products/the-new-meaning-of-educational-change-fourth-edition_9780807747650
4. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327-350. doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
5. Robb, T., & Kano, M. (2013). Effective extensive reading outside the classroom: A large-scale experiment. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 234-247. doi.org/10.64152/10125/66870
6. Macalister, J. (2010). Investigating teacher attitudes to extensive reading practices in higher education: Why isn't everyone doing it?. RELC Journal, 41(1), 59-75. doi.org/10.1177/0033688210362609
7. Macalister, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2020). Language Curriculum Design (2nd ed.). Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780429203763