The Cost of Waiting: How Systems Delay Reading Support
- DocHolbrook
- 51 minutes ago
- 5 min read
If you work in literacy, you know this pattern.
It starts as a quiet concern. A parent notices something that doesn’t feel quite right. A child isn’t picking up sounds. Letters aren’t sticking. Reading isn’t taking off the way it should.
At first, it’s subtle.
Then it becomes consistent.
And eventually, it becomes undeniable.
By spring, everyone agrees there’s a problem.
But here’s the truth we don’t say out loud enough:
We almost always knew months earlier.
The Story We Keep Repeating
A close friend recently asked me to take a look at her daughter in kindergarten.
She had a history of speech and language impairment in preschool and was declassified coming into kindergarten.
By November, concerns were already clear:
Weak phonological awareness
Difficulty with letter names and sounds
Inability to blend and segment
Not yet reading simple CVC words
So we raised the concern early.
In January, she finally began receiving targeted reading support.
Now it’s April.
And now the reading teachers are concerned.
But when I reassessed her, the data told a painful story:
Little to no growth. No meaningful response to instruction.
Her aimline is here. Her data points are here. The gap is not closing.
This is not new information.
This is what happens when we respond too late and not precisely enough.
What’s Really Going On in Schools?
1. We Declassify Too Early and Then Step Back
We take children with known language vulnerabilities and remove supports right as the demands increase.
Kindergarten is when the foundation is built.
It is not the time to step back.
2. We Don’t Act on Concerns Early Enough
Parents raise concerns early.
Teachers see the patterns.
But systems delay meaningful action.
Support starts months later, and by then, we are already trying to catch up instead of prevent.
3. This Is a Systems Problem, Not a People Problem
Is it the classroom teacher’s role? The reading teacher’s? The speech teacher’s?
When systems are not tight, responsibility becomes unclear and support becomes inconsistent.
This is not about individuals.
This is about how the system is designed to respond to struggling readers.
Know the Progression of How Reading Develops
Students cannot read words if they cannot blend sounds together.
It sounds simple, but in a rush to get every child reading, we often make instruction more complex than it needs to be.
We get fancy with our phonemic awareness. We add letters too soon.
We move to print before the child has the underlying skill.
And then we wonder why it’s not working.
In this case, intervention should focus on:
Blending
Segmenting
At increasing levels:
Words and compound words
Onset and rime
Phoneme-level
Once the child can reliably blend and segment 2–3 phonemes, then we bring in letters more intentionally.
We Are Overcomplicating Early Reading
In our urgency to get every child reading, we often do too much too soon.
We layer in letters. We push into text. We add programs, strategies, and materials.
And in doing so, we skip the one thing that actually makes reading possible.
The ability to hear and notice sounds in words.
When a child cannot blend speech sounds together, print will not make sense.
No amount of letter work will fix that.
No amount of exposure will fix that.
No program will fix that.
Because the issue is not print.
The issue is sound.
But instead of slowing down and targeting that foundational skill, we speed up.
We try to keep pace with the curriculum.
We try to catch them up by giving them more.
And the result is that instruction becomes more complex while the child is still missing the most basic skill.
What It Should Look Like Instead
We simplify.
We get precise.
We teach the skill that unlocks everything else.
In this case:
Blending
Segmenting
We stay there long enough for the child to:
Build accuracy
Build automaticity
Show a rate of improvement that is closing the gap
And only then do we increase complexity by layering in print more intentionally.
This is not slowing down.
This is accelerating learning.
Tier 3 Should Fill the Gap, Not Repeat Tier 1
This is where instruction often breaks down.
Tier 3 is not meant to replace Tier 1.
It is meant to support access to Tier 1.
In kindergarten Tier 1 classrooms:
Students are exposed to letters
Students are practicing blending and segmenting
Students are building early decoding skills
That is appropriate.
But when a student is not responding, Tier 3 should not simply reteach the same lesson.
Tier 3 should:
Identify the exact breakdown
Target that skill with precision
Accelerate development so the student can access Tier 1
In this case, the gap is phonological awareness.
So Tier 3 should focus on building the ability to blend and segment sounds.
Not repeating letter instruction.
Not assigning more reading tasks.
Filling the gap.
Act Early When the Gaps Are Still Small
Kindergarten is the opportunity.
The gaps are not that big yet.
Students are not years behind.
This is when intervention is most efficient, most effective, and most likely to change a child’s trajectory.
Waiting turns a small gap into a significant one.
When identified and supported early (K–1): ~90–95% of students can reach grade-level reading.
When intervention is delayed until Grade 3 or later: only about 10–30% of students catch up without intensive, long-term support
We know what to look for.
We know how to assess it.
We know how to teach it.
What we struggle with is building systems that respond early, precisely, and consistently.
Closing
This child is still in kindergarten.
There is still time.
But time only matters if we use it well.
We cannot keep waiting for concern to become consensus.
We cannot keep delaying action until the gap is undeniable.
Because the reality is:
We knew in November.
The question is:
Will we act differently next time?
Need Support?
If this story sounds familiar, you are not alone.
I regularly work with families to:
Conduct targeted literacy evaluations
Identify specific skill gaps
Develop clear, actionable instructional plans
If you are concerned about your child or a student, I offer a free initial consultation to talk through what you are seeing and what next steps could look like.
Because early, precise action can change everything.
When we know better, we teach better!
See you next Sunday!
References
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2012). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207800301
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical report). Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Moats, L. C. (2020). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Shanahan, T. (2020). The science of reading: A handbook. Brookes Publishing.
Wexler, N. (2019). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system—and how to fix it. Avery.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Guilford Press.