E79|Do Early Readers Naturally Catch Up? Unpacking Literacy Trajectories from Kindergarten to First Grade with Dr. Ye Shen and Dr. Elizabeth Hadley
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In this episode, host Jake Downs sits down with literacy researchers Dr. Ye Shen (Johns Hopkins University) and Dr. Elizabeth Hadley (University of South Florida) to unpack a massive longitudinal study tracking over 6,000 students from kindergarten entry through the spring of first grade. Moving beyond raw averages, Dr. Shen and Dr. Hadley reveal four distinct developmental trajectories and explain why “business as usual” MTSS practices often maintain the status quo instead of closing achievement gaps. Tune in to discover why early screeners must be treated as the starting point for an instructional conversation rather than a permanent label, and how educators can shift from tracking student profiles to accelerating growth.
Reference:
Shen, Y., Hadley, E. B., Liu, S., & Kim, E. (2026). Heterogeneity in developmental trajectories of early literacy: The role of child demographics and emergent literacy skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 129, 102924.
[2:21] — What the study set out to understand: moving beyond the “average student” to find distinct patterns of literacy development hidden within average growth
[5:28] — What reading skill typically looks like entering kindergarten, how it develops, and what it looks like by end of first grade
[8:14] — The specific assessments used: STAR Early Literacy (kindergarten entry screener) and MAP Reading (growth measure across five time points)
[11:06] — School context and instructional environment: 77 elementary schools, pre-COVID (2018–2019), commercial curriculum (HMH Journeys), and an MTSS framework in place
[12:52] — The four distinct literacy developmental profiles:
- High baseline, high growth (~38%)
- Middle baseline, moderate growth (~37%)
- Low baseline, low growth (~21%)
- Very high baseline, low growth (~4%)
[16:32] — Making the profiles concrete: translating RIT scores into practical reading skills — where the low group vs. middle group actually are in terms of decoding and comprehension
[19:41] — The Matthew effect: why lower trajectory groups never catch up; the lines run parallel and never intersect across all five data points
[23:17] — Demographic variables and trajectory membership: emergent bilingual status, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability status as markers of patterns of experience — not explanations of outcomes
[26:53] — How specific STAR Early Literacy subtests (alphabetic principle, sentence comprehension, structural analysis) predicted profile membership — and the surprising finding on structural analysis
[30:02] — Making sense of the findings: “business as usual” MTSS maintains the status quo rather than narrowing gaps; schools are not acting as the great equalizer
[34:51] — The role of reading screeners: a starting point for a conversation, not a diagnosis or a permanent label; the value of early identification followed by deeper understanding
[38:00] — Composite scores vs. subtests: using the composite as a flag, then moving to informal diagnostics (e.g., CORE Phonics) for instructional planning
[40:29] — Differentiating instruction across the four profiles: why a one-size-fits-all approach may not be enough for each group’s needs
[43:42] — What the guests are optimistic about: growing recognition that literacy development isn’t one-size-fits-all, better use of assessment to inform instruction, and increasing engagement between research and practice
[47:48] — Jake’s Take: MTSS is the floor, not the ceiling; early literacy skills matter but aren’t fate; the goal is to steepen the slope for lower-achieving students to narrow gaps