Why Students Struggle to Read and What We Can Do to Help

Many students struggle with reading. However, there are many different reasons why this might be the case. For some students, the texts they read in school are simply too difficult. In fact, even students who read at grade level may struggle with content area texts. Disturbingly, “research shows that many classrooms use textbooks written two or more years above the average grade level of their students” (Allington, 2002, p. 17). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many content area teachers follow an “‘assign and assess’” method of teaching, leaving students largely to their own devices to make meaning of texts that are far too difficult for them (Allington, 2002, p. 18). This is especially the case with older students, for whom little in the way of reading support is offered. Allington (2002) notes, “Policymakers have targeted almost no attention or funding on efforts to improve the reading proficiencies of students in grades 5-12—the very grades that need improvement, according to recent international comparisons” (p. 16).

However, content area reading is not the only problem. Some students struggle to read in every class. And many students receive failing scores on state reading assessments. In the name of helping these students (and improving test scores), many schools lump such students into one homogeneous group of underperforming students and assign them a one-size-fits-all intervention program, usually a program that focuses on phonemic awareness and decoding. Unfortunately, not all students who struggle to read need help with these foundational skills, so structuring intervention around these areas will not help every student. It may not even help most of the students included. Dennis (2009) warns, “When students are not taught according to their individual abilities and needs, but instead are taught based on the premise of a one-size-fits-all instructional program, we are not providing them with opportunities to climb the literacy ladder” (p. 288). In this lose-lose situation, students get stuck, teachers become frustrated, and test scores stagnate.

In exploring why students struggle, Caldwell and Leslie (2009) delineate three different areas of potential reading difficulty: word identification, fluency, and comprehension. But even within these categories, great variation exists. For example, a student struggling with word identification may not recognize that “letters represent sounds in a systematic way” (Caldwell & Leslie, 2009, p. 16). Even if a student does understand the letter/sound correspondence, the student’s rate of decoding may be “very slow and effortful” (Caldwell & Leslie, 2009, p. 16). Or the child might be a skillful decoder of short words but struggle with longer, multisyllabic words. Thus, a one-size-fits-all model does not make sense even if all children in a particular class are struggling with word identification. Comprehension, another potential area of difficulty outlined by Caldwell and Leslie (2009), seems particularly complex. Applegate (2006) presents eight different “comprehension profiles” to explain common patterns of comprehension difficulty. For example, some students may be what Applegate (2006) calls “literalists” (p. 50). These students run into problems because they think that any and every answer can be found in the text. They look for answers to be explicitly stated and resist using their own background knowledge and/or common sense. Higher-order questions that require students to make inferences are extremely troublesome for these types of students. Nearly the polar opposite of literalists, Applegate’s “quiz contestants” provide extremely logical answers to questions teachers ask. Unfortunately, their answers usually have little if anything to do with the text in front of them. Obviously, the same intervention will not work for literalists and quiz contestants. As Dennis (2009) states, ““Struggling young adolescents demonstrate complex, heterogeneous reading abilities requiring significantly different instructional interventions” (p. 290). Literalists must be taught that some answers require them to use their own background information and logic whereas quiz contestants must learn to understand and reference the text in front of them.

Regardless of the particular reasons students struggle, teachers can do something to help. Allington (2013) writes, “We now have an essential research base demonstrating that virtually every child could be reading grade level by the end of first grade” (p. 520). Does this sound too good to be true? Allington continues by saying that “almost no schools in the United States have anything in place that much looks like what the research says young children need to become engaged readers” (p. 520). Schools continue to waste time, money, and energy on teaching material and methodologies that don’t work. For example, as mentioned earlier, many intervention programs emphasize decoding although “no significant positive effects for decoding emphasis lessons were found for students, including struggling readers, beyond first grade” (p. 521). Other problems involve pushing teachers to follow reading programs that have not been shown to help students or to have paraprofessionals work with struggling students instead of trained reading specialists. Allington suggests getting rid of workbooks, worksheets, and computer-based reading programs so that money can be invested in research-based strategies led by skilled teachers. However, these recommendations run counter to what is authorized by many school districts and would therefore be difficult to implement.

If we really want to help our struggling students, it is imperative that we respect our students and existing research. Continuing to use programs, materials, and other resources that are not aligned to our students’ needs or research is a waste of time, money, and effort. It is time for schools to make smart decisions that can actually make a difference in students’ lives. Schools could be making these decisions—and even saving money in the process.[1] The question is: why aren’t they?

References

Allington, R. L. (2002). You can't learn much from books you can't read. Educational Leadership, 60(3), 16-19.

Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520-530.

Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J. (2006). Profiles in comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 48-57.

Caldwell, J.S. & Leslie, L. (2009). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading inventory assessment: So what do I do now? Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dennis, D. V. (2009). “I'm not stupid”: How assessment drives (in) appropriate reading instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(4), 283-290.

---

[1] Allington (2013) estimates that schools could save between $250,000 and $500,000 per year if they put his advice into practice (p. 527).