Q&A with Megan MacFeat, Baltimore literacy coach

Before we started working with Leading Educators, our early literacy teachers had some knowledge of the science of reading but a lot of them, similar to myself, either did not have that in undergraduate, or they’re coming from non-traditionally certified programs that aren’t teaching these best practices,” says Megan MacFeat, a literacy coach for Baltimore City Public Schools. 

She continues, “Now, we’ve had the opportunity to build background knowledge of the five pillars of literacy. This has helped teachers dig into the data and figure out the pieces our students are missing.”

As an academic content liaison and literacy coach who participates in City Schools’ innovative Science of Reading (SoR) fellowship, Megan guides teachers to apply new learning to lessons, offering support through classroom observations and small group coaching sessions. As a fellow, she receives ongoing support from a Leading Educator coach on using data analysis, instructional look-fors, and instructional coaching practices to provide peers with targeted action steps. This year, Megan supports classroom teachers, reading interventionists, and ESL teachers from various schools. 

Nationally, many states and school systems prioritize investments in new curricular materials and teacher training rooted in evidence-based literacy to address declining literacy. Baltimore City Public Schools has taken an innovative approach with enormous potential for scalable impact through systemic professional learning and a new fellowship for teacher leaders with Leading Educators’ help. 

I spoke with Megan MacFeat, a literacy coach with the district, to learn what the shift has been like for educators. As an academic content liaison and literacy coach in the Science of Reading (SoR) fellowship, Ms. MacFeat guides teachers in translating evidence-based literacy practices into effective classroom instruction. This year, she collaborates with a select group of SoR fellows, including classroom teachers, reading interventionists, and ESL teachers from various schools.

It has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.

As someone who spends much time observing instruction, what challenges did you notice before the literacy partnership?

Before we started working with Leading Educators, some of our teachers in early literacy classrooms had basic knowledge of the science of reading. However, most of our educators, like myself, either did not have the opportunity to engage in this research in undergraduate school or came from non-traditionally certified programs that may have yet to highlight these best practices. 

Our teachers know that we have a clear district-wide end-of-year literacy goal. By the end of the year, 80% of students at a particular grade level will score at a benchmark on a specific DIBELS measure. They were missing clarity on how to get there. What should we do differently with our students to get them there? 

What’s been great about our work with Leading Educators is building background knowledge of the five pillars of literacy. This has helped teachers dig into the data and figure out what our students know and what they are missing, allowing them to identify what activities and skills to focus on to get students to that end goal. 

Whether you’re working with a teacher who’s been teaching for 50 years or a teacher who just graduated from college, that kind of development is needed. Unfortunately, some education programs have yet to include the Science of Reading in their courses—it has been a learning experience for everyone.

What’s been different about working with veteran teachers who’ve been at it for years vs. new teachers?

One thing that has been valuable with the veteran teachers is not just necessarily telling them about the research and the best practices but also showing them.

With Leading Educators, we do a week-long foundational literacy institute for teachers over the summer. That has offered us chances to share the difference between a decodable text and a leveled text with our educators. For example, if you take the pictures away, and the students can’t rely on the image, can they still read this sentence? The answer may be surprising if you haven’t taught them that phonics rule yet.

When progress monitoring rolls around, teachers see the positive changes in their data, and their students become more confident. That is also really valuable for them—to be able to see that shift and that growth in the data.

How have you seen the partnership evolve over time? 

The biggest change I’ve seen is in our professional development regarding the intentionality behind it all and the through line. From the beginning of the year in August through the school year, it is targeted and timely.

The way professional development is structured gives teachers a little bit of everything that they need. Teachers have the research; they have an opportunity to practice those skills required to work with their peers; and then they can turn it around and implement it in their classroom. 

Our teachers really valued that level of predictability and consistency. From the district coaching side, it’s also been really helpful to have follow-up conversations with our teachers grounded in research and practice.

The PD scope and sequence continues to build; it’s strategic and designed to be a collaborative process. In working with the LE team, the mindset has always been open to feedback of wanting to know if the learning aligns and if we are on the right track to make sure that, ultimately, teachers are getting the most that they can from those sessions.

What positive changes have you observed since the partnership?

I was in a classroom this morning, and the reading interventionist commented on a sound that a student was producing. He commented on how that felt on his throat and whether the sound was voiced or unvoiced. And she said, “Yes, good. You’re paying attention to your articulatory gestures!”

That language, the fact that she used that in context, is just something that prior to this work with LE on the science of reading—those weren’t conversations that were happening in classrooms.

So, it’s amazing that third graders in a reading intervention group are able to pay attention to these articulatory gestures. I see it every day when I’m in classrooms, and those conversations that the teachers are having with the students: They’re using their sound charts and their sound wall, and they’re intentionally utilizing those resources.

Have you seen an uptick in student data? 

Overall, we’ve seen positive trends in our data as we move from BOY to EOY. Our youngest learners truly benefit from the structures and supports we have put in place this school year.

Teachers are using the science of reading, best practices, and the things that we’ve been going over in coaching, and you can then see that it’s really having a positive impact on student progress. I think the other positive gains we’re seeing are around phonemic awareness. We’re seeing students practice concepts of blending and segmenting now every day.

Anything else you would like to share?

I really appreciate that there’s consistently a line of communication between our team and the Leading Educators team to talk about where we’re thinking of going, our roadmap, and making sure that support is relevant and timely, which really helps to ensure we are focusing on the most impactful topics. Since we’re asking teachers to make time for systemic PD, we want to ensure that it’s meaningful and [teachers] can turn around and implement those practices in their classrooms.

Stay Engaged!

This interview is part of our ongoing series, in which we chat with school and district leaders to highlight the most promising opportunities for systems change and the leaders who are making them happen.

Baltimore City Public Schools is just one of a dozen partnerships across the country that are pushing the boundaries of what schools can offer students. Learn more about how we customize our supports to meet the needs and strengths of visionary districts.