Advancing early literacy with a 1st-grade safety net

Many elementary school readers are struggling. This presents fiscally constrained districts with hard questions about when, how, and with whom to intervene. However, we believe the research makes a clear case for where to start: 1st grade.

Children who are poor readers in 1st grade rarely catch up without intervention, and the earlier that intervention comes, the better. But intervening early requires more than a good tutoring program. It requires a system that identifies struggling readers at the earliest reliable signal, deploys proven interventions, and tracks whether it is working. We call this a 1st-grade safety net, and we don’t believe that any state has yet built a system with all the critical features needed for impact and sustainability. Massachusetts’s new early literacy tutoring initiative is a leading example of the kind of work states will need to do to get there—more on the approach here. Instead, most states organize their literacy systems around a 3rd-grade finish line rather than a 1st-grade starting point (e.g., with grade retention policies for 3rd graders who are struggling to read).

The evidence supporting a high-dosage tutoring strategy anchored in 1st grade

In recent years, many states and schools have adopted high-dosage tutoring (HDT) to improve achievement. HDT—when implementing a proven model with fidelity—has an extensive body of research to support it. Doing this well requires time, resources, and constant attention to implementation. In effective models, trained, live tutors deliver structured lessons in small groups (or one-to-one) almost daily, during the school day. They follow a clear scope-and-sequence, track students’ progress, and adapt to students’ needs along the way.

HDT is a big intervention that can yield big returns in reading outcomes. However, school leaders often need to make decisions about which students to prioritize when resources are limited. First grade is a high-leverage moment for HDT, with evidence pointing to significant and lasting returns.

Kindergarten literacy skills are strong predictors of third-grade reading scores. Schools that use reliable screeners in kindergarten and 1st grade can identify the students most at risk for falling behind. Research indicates that earlier intervention with these students yields greater gains, with 1st- and 2nd-grade students showing stronger responses to reading interventions than 3rd graders. HDT research, in particular, shows strong impacts in 1st grade. At this young age, when the gap between a child’s skills and the core curriculum is smaller, an intervention that produces a few additional months of learning could be enough to bring a student to grade level and prepare them for success in 2nd and 3rd grade. In fact, in a recent study of a live, virtual HDT model implemented across 13 Massachusetts school districts, one of us (Neitzel) found that 85% of tutored 1st graders who mastered foundational skills were still at grade level at the end of 2nd grade.

The Massachusetts study is not an isolated finding. Other studies also show a sustained benefit from tutoring delivered in the early grades. For example, one study of a K-3 literacy tutoring model found that students maintained advantages in attendance and reading achievement five years after participation. This raises the question of “Why wait?” when it comes to intervening with struggling young readers.

The solution: A literacy safety net in 1st grade

With so many students falling so far behind, we need a sustained, systematic approach to delivering HDT that intervenes early with struggling readers and brings them up to grade level. State agencies should prioritize this work. The tools for building strong systems around early-grade HDT exist, and state education agencies have the power to bring them to fruition.

Before state leaders build a 1st-grade safety net around HDT, they need to attend to some issues that will affect how well their tutoring investments work. First, they should ensure they have strong, evidence-based core literacy instruction. If, for example, most 1st graders in a district are performing below grade level, then probing the core instructional materials and approaches is warranted. HDT may not be the right first step to solving problems at that scale. Second, all schools should be using high-quality, universal screeners (ideally three times per year). These screeners are critical in identifying students who require additional support. (Notably, while more than 40 states require literacy screeners, implementation varies across districts and schools.)

With these conditions met, state leaders can start the work of building a 1st-grade literacy safety net around HDT. Here are what we see as the key components:

1. A literacy early warning system that triggers tutoring intervention

We recommend a FERPA-compliant data system that is accessible at state and local levels and aggregates student-level information such as classroom metrics, literacy screener results, and standardized assessments. This is critical for identifying students for early intervention and facilitating collaboration among families, teachers, and administrators.

2. Replicable, proven interventions

States should establish a process for vetting tutoring models for evidence of (1) impact on 1st-grade literacy outcomes and (2) providers’ capacity to deliver the model at scale. They should share vetted models with districts no later than early spring prior to a fall launch. Important decisions about matters such as student selection and integration with the school-day schedule must be made months before the school year begins.

3. Support with implementation and ongoing monitoring

Schools will need support and resources to implement these models effectively. Additionally, ongoing monitoring is critical to determining how an intervention is working (and for whom), how implementation can be improved, and who no longer needs the intervention. In a study of a reading tutoring program implemented across 13 districts and 46 schools, one of us (Neitzel) found that effective implementation systems facilitated regular collaboration between providers, districts, and schools to identify and address ongoing challenges. Notably, the study found significant gains in 1st-grade reading achievement, with strong implementation supports being a key driver.

4. Evaluation of tutoring interventions that support decisionmaking

States and districts should set clear, measurable objectives for implementation fidelity and student outcomes. They should also maintain secure systems for ongoing data collection and analysis that can be used to monitor tutoring implementation, understand program impact, and support decisionmaking. For example, session-level data that tracks student and tutor attendance can help decisionmakers answer critical questions about whether students are getting the intended dosage. These systems enable continuous evaluation, which helps to sustain implementation quality and inform decisions on whether and how to maintain tutoring programs.

5. A K-3 literacy accountability system

States and districts should maintain a public-facing system that measures and reports progress towards reading goals. It should monitor progress over time by district, school, grade, and subgroup.

Implemented equitably and carefully, a tutoring safety net that is focused on first grade and uses effective models can address literacy challenges early on—and therefore increase the number of students who are prepared to succeed in elementary grades and beyond. The need is urgent, and the tools are available to ensure that virtually all students become strong readers.