For years, schools have been asked to choose a program and trust that the right program, implemented well, will take care of the rest. That has shaped a lot of literacy work. It has also led us to spend too much time looking at the program itself and too little time looking at the teaching around it (Dusenbury et al., 2003; O’Donnell, 2008).

What I am seeing now is a shift. People are starting to ask, “We have a program, but what are we missing?” That question shows up in conversations about student independence, in concerns about whole-group instruction, and in the growing realization that learning does not happen because a program was purchased. Learning happens because teaching is strong (Lakin & Rambo-Hernandez, 2019; O’Donnell, 2008).

This is where Daily 5 and CAFE still belong in the conversation. They were literacy routines, and they gave teachers a way to organize independent work, conferring, goal setting, and student practice. But they also made room for something essential: the teacher’s ability to notice what a student needed and respond in the moment. When we later pulled the high-impact practices from Daily 5 and CAFE and named them more clearly in Prepared Classroom, it became easier to see that the instructional power was not only in the routine. It was in the teaching practice inside it (Duty, 2016; Cater, n.d.; Cambourne, 1995).

That is part of why the current conversation feels so familiar. We set aside responsive teaching and other high-impact classroom practices in favor of a program-first mindset, and now people are beginning to ask why. Why did we give up the practices that helped students think, practice, and grow? Why did we assume one program could do all the work? Why did we trade teacher judgment for pacing guides and scripts (Cambourne, 1988; O’Donnell, 2008)?

Those questions point to a bigger truth: we have been looking too narrowly at programs. Doing better is not as simple as choosing a different one.

The research conversation is beginning to reflect that same shift. Studies on teacher judgment, fidelity, and implementation all point to the same truth: strong teaching cannot be reduced to a script. Teachers make decisions. Teachers notice. Teachers respond. Teachers create the conditions that allow learning to stick. Programs can support that work, but they do not replace it (Dusenbury et al., 2003; Hill & Erickson, 2021; Lakin & Rambo-Hernandez, 2019; O’Donnell, 2008).

That is why this conversation matters beyond literacy. When we reduce instruction to a program, we lose sight of the teacher’s role in shaping learning. When we make room for strong teaching practices, students gain more than content. They gain the chance to use what they learn, build independence, and grow over time (Cambourne, 1995; Duty, 2016).

This is what people are starting to notice. They are not rejecting programs. They are questioning the assumption that a program is enough. They are seeing that it is never just one program. It is always the quality of teaching around it. And that is where our work with The Teaching Practice comes in: naming, supporting, and strengthening the practices that make learning possible inside any program. Daily 5, CAFE, and Prepared Classroom helped us see those practices more clearly, and that is part of why this shift feels so important now (Cater, n.d.; Duty, 2016; Cambourne, 1988; Cambourne, 1995).

Your friend,

Gail

References

Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. Ashton Scholastic.

Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning: Twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182–190.

Cambourne, B. (n.d.). Made for learning: How the conditions of learning guide teaching decisions.

Cater, R. (n.d.). The impact of the Daily 5 and the CAFÉ models on improving literacy skills for fifth grade students [Doctoral dissertation].

Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/18.2.237

Duty, S. L. (2016). The impact of Daily 5 and CAFE literacy framework on reading comprehension in struggling fourth grade readers: A case study [Doctoral dissertation, Portland State University].

Hill, H. C., & Erickson, A. (2021). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. EdWorkingPaper No. 21-414.

Lakin, J. M., & Rambo-Hernandez, K. E. (2019). Fidelity of implementation: Understanding why and when programs work. Gifted Child Today, 42(4), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519862327

O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313793