Why Small-Group Reading Instruction Still Works: A Research-Based Response to the EdWeek Article
When EdWeek published the headline “Small-Group Reading Instruction Is Not as Effective as You Think,” it sparked an immediate reaction across the literacy community. Educators began sharing it widely, often with comments suggesting that small-group instruction should be abandoned or replaced entirely with whole-group teaching.
But here’s the problem:
This interpretation is not what the article actually says — and it’s not what the research says either.
As a teacher and literacy coach who still works in K–2 classrooms every week, I want to offer a grounded, research-aligned, classroom-informed perspective. While the article raises some valid concerns, the way it is being shared is leading teachers and administrators to the wrong conclusion.
So let’s clear it up.
The Article Raises Real Problems — But Not About Small-Group Instruction Itself
The EdWeek article highlights something many of us have seen firsthand: the way small-group time is structured in many classrooms leads to massive amounts of wasted instructional time. In countless schools, students spend 30–45 minutes rotating through centers that simply don’t move reading development forward — coloring pages, cutting and gluing activities, worksheets disconnected from the phonics lesson, or flipping through leveled books they can’t decode.
This is absolutely a problem.
But here is where the message gets distorted:
The article critiques the structure around small groups — not small-group instruction itself.
The headline suggests something much more dramatic than the content supports. And as the article circulates online, people are using it to claim:
❌ “Small groups don’t work.”
❌ “Whole-group instruction is better.”
❌ “We should stop doing small-group reading.”
These statements are not supported by the article. And they are certainly not supported by the research.
The issue is perception.
The headline is provocative, and the way people are sharing it is misleading others.
Students Need Both Grade-Level Instruction and Targeted Small Groups
One point the article gets right is the importance of giving students access to grade-level content. Research such as TNTP’s landmark report, The Opportunity Myth (https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/) shows that students spend too much time on below-grade-level tasks — often unnecessarily.
And this is true: students deserve rich, grade-level whole-group instruction.
But here’s the essential nuance that gets lost when people misuse this article:
Students who are behind still benefit from whole-group instruction — and they also need small-group instruction.
These two formats serve different purposes and are not interchangeable.
Stephanie Stollar, founder of The Reading Science Academy, consistently emphasizes that students need strong, explicit whole-group instruction paired with targeted small-group practice aligned to screening and progress monitoring data. Whole-group lessons build shared knowledge; small groups provide the precise practice and feedback students need.
Vaughn & Denton Their research has shown repeatedly that struggling readers need additional explicit instruction delivered in small groups to make meaningful progress — far more than whole-group instruction alone can offer.
Natalie Wexler, author of The Knowledge Gap, emphasizes the power of whole-group knowledge building—especially for students who lack background knowledge. But she also acknowledges the need for targeted foundational skill instruction when students haven’t yet mastered decoding.
Why Whole-Group-Only Instruction Isn’t Realistic or Recommended
The article suggests that whole-group instruction may be more efficient than small groups. While whole-group lessons are essential — especially for knowledge building and introducing phonics concepts — they can never replace the role of targeted practice.
In any real K–2 classroom, you will find students working on a wide range of skills:
One second grader still securing CVC words
Another working on blends
Another learning CVCe
Another decoding vowel teams
A multilingual learner mapping English phonemes
A student reading above grade level
No whole-group lesson can meet all those needs at once.
It’s developmentally unrealistic.
Whole-group instruction provides shared content and coherence.
Small-group instruction provides the individualized practice and feedback that closes skill gaps.
Why Intervention Alone Cannot Replace Teacher-Led Small Groups
Another misconception rising from how this article is being shared is the idea that interventionists can take over all targeted instruction. But this is not how MTSS functions.
Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention are meant to be a double dip — not a replacement for classroom small groups.
Students who need the most support require:
strong whole-group instruction
consistent teacher-led small-group instruction
intervention aligned to classroom goals
The classroom teacher remains the most influential factor in a student's literacy outcomes.
The Real Problem Isn’t Small Groups — It’s the Structure Around Them
Here’s the part where the article raises a valid warning: traditional center rotations often waste an enormous amount of time. But again — this is a problem with implementation, not with the instructional format itself.
Poorly structured small-group blocks lead to:
long periods of unproductive independent work
activities disconnected from explicit instruction
reliance on leveled texts that encourage guessing
transitions that eat up instructional minutes
But small groups become incredibly effective when:
independent tasks are short, meaningful, and skill-based
the highest-need students see the teacher most frequently
intervention reduces independent time for at-risk readers
small-group lessons directly align with screening and progress monitoring
routines are tight, predictable, and efficient
When we fix the structure, small-group instruction becomes one of the most powerful levers for improving early reading.
What the Research Actually Says About Small Groups
Despite the dramatic headline, the research base on small-group instruction is overwhelmingly positive — when implemented well.
Studies consistently show that:
Explicit instruction in small groups accelerates decoding and fluency.
Struggling readers benefit most from additional guided practice with immediate feedback.
The combination of whole-group knowledge building and targeted small-group skills instruction is the most effective model for early literacy.
Small groups allow teachers to match instruction to student needs with precision.
The EdWeek article is critiquing poor execution — not the efficacy of small-group instruction.
This distinction matters.
What We Should Actually Be Talking About
The real conversation shouldn’t be “Do small groups work?” — because research already answers that.
The questions that truly transform reading instruction are:
Are independent tasks meaningful and aligned to what students know?
Are whole-group lessons explicit, systematic, and cumulative?
Are high-risk students receiving the most instructional time?
Are teachers and interventionists working in partnership?
Is small-group time driven by real data, not tradition?
Are we maximizing instructional time rather than filling it?
When we design instruction around these questions, the literacy block becomes coherent, efficient, and powerfully aligned to student needs.
Final Thoughts: Small Groups Aren’t Broken — But the Way People Are Talking About Them Might Be
The EdWeek article brings up legitimate concerns about wasted time in traditional center rotations. That part is true, and it’s worth addressing. But the solution is not to eliminate small-group instruction. The solution is to redesign it — and to stop misrepresenting what the article actually says.
The way people are sharing this article is leading others to believe that small-group instruction is ineffective. That interpretation is not accurate. It’s not supported by the research. And it’s not supported by the article itself.
When small groups are intentional, explicit, and aligned to student needs, they don’t just support learning —
they accelerate it. They transform it. They change reading trajectories.
I hope that you found today’s post helpful. Leave your questions below or send me an email Amie@literacyedventures.com
