Adaptive Tools, Authentic Access: Unlocking Literacy for Diverse Learners

Building on the foundational work of Comprehensive Literacy for All and the strategies developed through Project Core, we must reimagine literacy instruction to meet the needs of students with complex learning profiles. This includes children with significant cognitive disabilities, limited verbal communication, and those who rely on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). These students often face systemic barriers to literacy, not due to a lack of capability, but because instructional practices fail to meet them where they are. Literacy must be treated as a fundamental right, not a privilege reserved for students who already demonstrate conventional skills.

Effective redesign begins with a commitment to presuming competence. Instruction should be built on the belief that all students can learn to read and write when given appropriate access, time, and support. According to Erickson and Koppenhaver, authors of Comprehensive Literacy for All, instruction should integrate daily opportunities for shared reading, independent writing, phonics, and word study, even for students with complex needs¹. These elements should not be siloed but woven together into routines that are predictable, meaningful, and responsive to each learner’s communication style and sensory profile.

Creating Inclusive Extended-Day Literacy Opportunities

Extended-day programs provide a critical opportunity to reinforce literacy skills in a more flexible, low-pressure environment. In my experience developing after-school programming, I found that literacy instruction outside the traditional school day allows for greater creativity in how content is delivered and practiced. These settings are ideal for integrating literacy with student interests, such as reading scripts for drama activities, writing captions for digital photography projects, or creating graphic novels that reflect personal experiences.

To ensure extended-day literacy instruction is meaningful for students with significant learning needs, it must maintain high expectations while offering multiple points of access. The use of core boards and symbol-supported texts, as advocated by Project Core, can help students with limited speech participate in reading discussions and writing tasks². Additionally, staff must be trained to use aided language input consistently, modeling how to communicate using the same AAC systems students rely on. This type of modeling is essential for building vocabulary, sentence structure, and comprehension over time.

Adaptive Tools that Unlock Student Participation

Technology and adaptive tools are not enhancements for students with significant learning needs - they are essential tools for equity and access. Tools such as switch access devices, eye-gaze systems, and symbol-based software allow students to engage with print in ways that reflect their physical and cognitive capabilities. For example, students who cannot hold a pencil may still generate written work through on-screen keyboards or speech-to-text applications.

The key is to select tools based on student strengths rather than deficits. A student who enjoys music might thrive with literacy tasks embedded in songwriting or lyric analysis, while another who is visually oriented may benefit from apps that pair text with strong visual cues. The SETT Framework (Student, Environment, Tasks, Tools) provides a useful structure for making these decisions collaboratively among educators, therapists, students, and families³. In each case, the goal is not simply access, but meaningful and sustained participation.

Explicit Modeling and Gradual Release

Teaching literacy to students with significant learning needs requires intentional scaffolding. This includes breaking tasks into manageable parts, providing multiple exemplars, and modeling each step with clarity and patience. A shared writing routine, for instance, might begin with the teacher generating a sentence based on a class discussion, modeling how to stretch out words to spell them, and discussing why certain punctuation is used. Over time, students are invited to contribute more, eventually generating full sentences with support.

The gradual release of responsibility model - “I do, we do, you do” - is particularly effective when adapted for nontraditional communicators. In the “we do” phase, students can use AAC devices to select words or symbols that contribute to a group story. These group activities reduce pressure while reinforcing the structure and purpose of writing. As students become more confident, they can begin creating their own texts, supported by sentence starters, word banks, and visual organizers that align with their communication strengths⁴.

Building Confidence Through Consistent Practice

Confidence grows when students experience success that is both authentic and acknowledged. Routine and repetition are not the same as rote learning; when structured thoughtfully, daily literacy routines become opportunities for students to generalize skills across contexts. For example, a student who writes a simple sentence during morning meeting can revisit and expand that sentence during a literacy block, then read it aloud using a speech-generating device in an afternoon activity.

Consistency also helps students anticipate what is expected of them. Using visual schedules, predictable routines, and clear language supports emotional regulation and task engagement. Encouragement should be specific and affirming - instead of saying “good job,” say “I like how you found that word on your device” or “You remembered to use a capital letter.” These statements reinforce the skill and signal to the student that their effort is seen and valued. This type of feedback contributes to a positive identity as a reader and writer⁵.

Honoring Strengths While Addressing Gaps

Literacy instruction should not begin with deficits. It should begin with what students love, what they know, and how they express themselves. When we anchor instruction in student interests - whether that’s dinosaurs, cooking, or superhero stories - we make space for joy and engagement. These interests can serve as the foundation for building vocabulary, comprehension, and writing fluency. A student who loves trains might write a repetitive book titled “My Train Goes,” adding a new location each day and reading it aloud to peers.

Addressing skill gaps is still essential, but it must be done with compassion and clarity. Rather than isolating students for remedial drills, embed skill-building in authentic tasks. For example, phonemic awareness can be developed through songs and rhymes that are part of a classroom ritual. Word recognition can be supported through adapted books with repeated phrases. When students see themselves as capable participants in literacy tasks, they are more likely to take risks and persist through challenges⁶.

Conclusion: A Call to Action for Public Education Leaders

Literacy access for students with significant learning needs is not only a legal obligation under IDEA, but also a moral responsibility for all education leaders. As public education practitioners, we must ensure that our policies, staffing models, and professional development plans support inclusive, evidence-based literacy instruction across both classroom and extended-day settings. This requires ongoing investment in educator training, adaptive technologies, and cross-sector partnerships that prioritize equity.

Whether in a classroom or a community center, every student deserves to be seen as a reader and a writer. By integrating the research from Comprehensive Literacy for All and Project Core into daily practice, and by centering student strengths rather than limitations, we can create a more inclusive and literate future for all learners.

Bibliography

1. Erickson, Karen, and David Koppenhaver. Comprehensive Literacy for All: Teaching Students with Significant Disabilities to Read and Write. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 2020.

2. Center for Literacy and Disability Studies. “Project Core Implementation Guide.” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2022. https://www.project-core.com/implementation-guide/

3. Zabala, Joy. “The SETT Framework.” Texas Assistive Technology Network, 2005. https://www.texasat.net/

4. Fisher, Douglas, Nancy Frey, and John Hattie. Visible Learning for Literacy: Implementing the Practices That Work Best to Accelerate Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2016.

5. McNaughton, David, and Janice Light. “The iPad and Mobile Technology Revolution: Benefits and Challenges for Individuals who require Augmentative and Alternative Communication.” Augmentative and Alternative Communication 29, no. 2 (2013): 107-116.

6. Justice, Laura M., and Helen K. Ezell. “Use of Storybook Reading to Increase Print Awareness in At-Risk Children.” American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 11, no. 1 (2002): 17-29.