Why a Literacy Framework Matters in 2025
Across K–12 systems, literacy is increasingly understood as far more than “reading and writing.” The Calgary Board of Education (CBE) defines literacy as the ability, confidence, and willingness to engage with language to acquire, construct, and communicate meaning in daily life. That definition matters because it positions literacy as both a learning outcome and an equity commitment: when students can access language, they can access curriculum, relationships, and future opportunities.
From a district leadership perspective, a shared literacy framework also provides coherence. It helps schools align classroom practice, school development plans, and system priorities—especially when staffing shortages, high student mobility, and complex learning needs make consistency difficult to maintain. CBE’s Literacy Framework (September 2025) is a strong example of a system document that connects research, identity, and practical implementation.
Start with Identity, Belonging, and Engagement
One of the most important messages in the CBE framework is that students must “see themselves” in learning spaces before we can expect sustained progress in skill development. This aligns with what many of us hear repeatedly in conferences and webinars: engagement is not a “nice to have”—it is a prerequisite for learning acceleration.
When students experience school as a place where their language, culture, and lived experience are recognized, they are more likely to take academic risks, persist through challenge, and participate in discourse. The framework emphasizes that literacy environments should reflect students and communities and should be intentionally curated to be inclusive and bias-aware.
- Build student voice and choice into reading and writing tasks.
- Use interest inventories to understand students’ reading and writing identities.
- Strengthen home–school–community literacy relationships (families are partners, not an “add-on”).
- Select texts that function as “mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors,” supporting both belonging and empathy.
Design Literacy Environments That Reduce Barriers
CBE organizes literacy environments around four practical components: student identity and engagement, learning spaces, instructional materials, and routines. This is especially useful because it moves literacy from an abstract goal to observable conditions educators can build.
Learning Spaces (Physical and Virtual)
Learning spaces include the classroom layout, small-group areas, quiet workspaces, and the design of virtual learning environments. In online contexts, “space” also includes the clarity of the platform, predictable session structures, and accessibility tools.
- Create spaces for respectful dialogue and collaborative problem-solving.
- Ensure materials are organized and easy to access (including digital resources).
- Use technology purposefully—tools should remove barriers, not add complexity.
Instructional Materials That Are Multimodal and Culturally Responsive
Materials should vary by modality, level, format, topic, and perspective. The framework highlights culturally responsive texts, including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit knowledge systems, languages, and histories. From a special education lens, we also want materials that support access: decodable texts for phonics application, visuals such as sound walls, and scaffolds like sentence frames and graphic organizers.
Routines That Build Safety and Learning Time
Routines are not about compliance; they are about predictability and trust. When routines are clear, educators spend less time managing transitions and more time teaching. For students with learning needs (including language delays, executive function challenges, or anxiety), routines can be an essential accommodation.
- Post learning intentions and daily schedules in student-friendly language.
- Use consistent expectations across independent, small-group, and whole-group learning.
- Plan meaningful daily reading and writing tasks across content areas.
- Use flexible grouping to target specific instructional needs without tracking students permanently.
Evidence-Based Literacy Teaching Practices: From Oral Language to Comprehension
CBE’s framework emphasizes research-informed, explicit, and systematic instruction. This aligns with the science of reading and with what many districts are prioritizing: strong Tier 1 instruction plus targeted intervention that is responsive to student data.
Oral Language Is Foundational
Oral language influences virtually every part of the school day—following directions, participating in discussions, building background knowledge, and understanding academic vocabulary. The framework outlines components educators should recognize and support:
- Morphology (meaningful word parts)
- Semantics (word meanings and vocabulary)
- Syntax (grammar and sentence structure)
- Pragmatics (social use of language)
- Phonology and phonological skills (speech sound system)
In practice, this means intentionally planning for structured talk: open-ended questions, dialogic discussion, reciprocal teaching routines, and adequate wait time. For many students, especially those with language-based learning needs, these are not “extras”—they are access strategies.
Reading: A Skilled Process Built from Interconnected Threads
The framework references Scarborough’s Reading Rope, which illustrates how word recognition and language comprehension are woven together through multiple skills. It also references Duke and Cartwright’s Active View of Reading, which highlights additional influences such as motivation, engagement, strategy use, and executive function.
For school teams, the takeaway is straightforward: when a student struggles with reading, we must avoid one-size-fits-all solutions. Reading difficulty may stem from phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, background knowledge, language comprehension, or self-regulation. Effective intervention starts with accurate identification of the barrier.
Key Components of Reading Instruction
- Phonological awareness: Daily opportunities to hear, identify, and manipulate sounds (including phonemic awareness tasks like blending and segmenting).
- Phonics: Explicit, systematic instruction connecting graphemes to phonemes, with immediate application in real reading and writing (including decodable text use).
- Fluency: Building accuracy, automaticity, and prosody through modeled reading and structured protocols (echo, choral, paired, repeated reading).
- Vocabulary: Direct instruction (especially Tier 2 and Tier 3 words) plus rich language experiences, word-learning strategies, and word consciousness.
- Comprehension: Active meaning-making supported by background knowledge, vocabulary, discussion, and strategies such as summarizing, questioning, inferring, and monitoring.
Writing as a Tool for Thinking and Learning
The framework positions writing as a multimodal, recursive process that helps students communicate, deepen comprehension, and make thinking visible. It references “The Writing Rope,” emphasizing that skilled writing requires both macro-level decisions (purpose, audience, organization) and micro-level skills (syntax, transcription, spelling, handwriting/keyboard skills).
In schools, writing instruction is often where we see the impact of therapist shortages most acutely—students may have strong ideas but struggle with language formulation, transcription, or organization. This is an area where coordinated supports can make a measurable difference.
- Schedule daily, structured writing opportunities for authentic purposes.
- Use mentor texts and explicit instruction in genre and craft.
- Teach planning and revision as visible processes, not hidden expectations.
- Leverage digital tools (e.g., collaborative documents) for feedback and editing.
Disciplinary Literacy: Every Teacher Supports Literacy—But Not in the Same Way
CBE clearly states: every teacher is a teacher of the literacies within their discipline. Disciplinary literacy is not simply applying English Language Arts strategies everywhere; it is teaching students how reading, writing, vocabulary, and evidence work differently in science, math, social studies, career and technology studies, and beyond.
- Identify the technical language and text structures unique to each subject.
- Select multimodal disciplinary texts (graphs, tables, primary sources, podcasts, lab procedures).
- Model how experts in the field read and evaluate information (including bias and accuracy).
- Design inquiry tasks that mirror authentic disciplinary thinking.
Assessment and Reporting: A Continuous Cycle, Not an Event
The framework reinforces that assessment is the bridge between teaching and learning. It highlights five principles: fairness and equity, alignment to learning goals, ongoing embedded practice, active learner involvement, and clear communication with families.
It also distinguishes three assessment purposes:
- Diagnostic: Used at the beginning of a learning cycle to understand readiness and needs (not for grades).
- Formative: Used throughout instruction to adjust teaching and provide feedback (typically not for grades).
- Summative: Used at the end to evaluate achievement of learning goals (contributes to grades and reporting).
For leadership teams, this structure supports a critical compliance and quality goal: decisions about intervention, accommodations, and service intensity should be grounded in multiple sources of evidence (observations, conversations, and products), not a single score.
Where Online Therapy Services Fit: Strengthening Capacity When Staffing Is Tight
As a Special Education Director, I see the same pressure points across districts: recruitment challenges for SLPs and OTs, increased complexity of student needs, and the urgency to maintain service minutes and IEP commitments. Online therapy services—when implemented thoughtfully—can help stabilize delivery while supporting literacy outcomes.
TinyEYE’s online therapy model can support schools in several literacy-aligned ways:
- Oral language intervention: Targeting vocabulary, syntax, narrative skills, and pragmatic language that directly affect comprehension and written expression.
- Collaboration with educators: Aligning therapy goals with classroom literacy routines and disciplinary demands.
- Consistency across schools: Supporting equitable access when in-person staffing varies by site.
- Data-informed practice: Using progress monitoring to inform instructional adjustments and IEP review discussions.
Most importantly, online therapy can help districts protect both quality and compliance—ensuring students receive the supports they require to access instruction, demonstrate learning, and build confidence as communicators.
For more information, please follow this link.
