Learning to teach, teach to learn - by Vanessa Pinto

Lately I have been reflecting on my trajectory through education and how the events in my life led me to where I am today. Looking back might feel repetitive, but I think we only truly value reflection once we’re mature enough to see our path clearly, yet still young enough to want to keep learning.

When I first started teaching, I learned from some of the best. It wasn’t planned, and it wasn’t a career I had invested in from the start—it was something that simply felt meant to be.

If I could write an apology letter to the parents of my first group of students, I probably would. Not because I wasn’t good—I have always believed that building relationships with students is the key to learning, and even back then I had that part right. I would apologize for not knowing more, for not being more intentional, and for relying too closely on the book because that was all I knew at the time.

By my third year of teaching, I was moved to first grade and met two incredible educators who became role models for me to this day: Katrina and Nani. Katrina was a young American woman, just arriving in Brazil, full of ideas—centers, holiday celebrations, crafts, and ways to make learning genuinely fun. Nani was the English teacher. Her voice—and even her personality—shifted when she spoke English. She was always focused on how we could teach students better. Their approaches helped me realize the importance of both creativity and intentionality in teaching.

I learned so much from both of them, but the biggest turning point was understanding the difference between phonics and phonological awareness, and how, as second-language teachers, we needed to give students experiences that helped them make sound connections—through nursery rhymes, rhyming, rhythm, and play.

That was also when I was introduced to Jolly Phonics, where students learned letter names and sounds, practiced segmenting and blending, and eventually read CVC words. All of this happened in first grade, and yes, we adjusted the timing of the program a bit, but in the end, it was truly beautiful to witness.

This all happened back in 2010–2011. Fast forward to 2025, and here I am in the United States, teaching at the number-one school in Florida, responsible for inspiring Kindergarten students to read. Clearly, I loved this age group so much that I never truly stepped away from them—and over time, I’ve built a set of strategies that help me shape my own way of teaching.

Is it much different from 2010? In most ways, it isn’t. What has changed is me. The experience and knowledge I’ve gained over the past fifteen years have made me fully aware of my strengths. Finding strategies that motivate students and make them want to learn has become one of my superpowers.

Being a good teacher, to me, is connecting everything you learn—intentionally or not—with what you believe is best for your students. No year is ever the same, even if the curriculum and expectations remain constant.

Since 2021, I have been learning about the Science of Reading, which, according to the district at the time, is not a teaching methodology—it is knowledge that influences how teachers teach. The Science of Reading doesn’t provide a step-by-step instructional manual; instead, it explains how students learn to read, what happens in their brains, and what connections are forming as they do. One key understanding from SOR is that students learn best with explicit instruction. It also emphasizes that word recognition and language comprehension must develop together to maximize reading success.

Scarborough’s Reading Rope is one of the most approachable ways to visualize the complex processes happening in the brain as we learn to read. Understanding the Reading Rope has influenced how I design lessons and approach early reading instruction. It offers a clear framework for understanding these intricacies (RGR Really Great Reading, n.d.).

To put this knowledge into practice, my district uses UFLI to deliver phonics instruction and Benchmark Advanced for reading—both aligned with the Science of Reading. Teaching UFLI is a game changer, yielding immediate, measurable results in every classroom. UFLI is an explicit and systematic program that teaches students the foundational skills necessary for proficient reading. It follows a carefully developed scope and sequence designed to ensure that students acquire each skill systematically and learn to apply each skill with automaticity and confidence (UFLI Foundations | U F Literacy Institute, n.d.).

As teachers, we basically follow the manual, which some resist. During a training, one teacher expressed concern that following the script would make her sound robotic and lose connection with her students. The instructor explained that the script ensures children hear only what they need to learn, preventing confusion from extra information. All resources are available for teachers—from sounds, cards, decodables, and more.

Is it completely different from Jolly Phonics? In my opinion, it uses many of the same principles, such as teaching letter names and sounds in non-alphabetical order and blending sounds to form words along the way. UFLI is more complex, but it strongly supports student learning.

My questions are specific to bilingual and multilingual students, because UFLI asserts that students do not need phonemic awareness to learn how to read. In my school, 64% of families are not American, and English is not the primary language spoken at home. I notice differences in how American and non-American students learn, particularly regarding comprehension and connecting sounds when blending. Students may decode a new word, but not yet connect it to meaning.

Could this affect comprehension skills? Could it lead to poor reading outcomes later, even for students who are strong decoders? I still need more research to answer these questions fully. For now, our strategy has been to introduce students to rhyming games, nursery rhymes, and beginning/ending sounds games; we have even brought back Heggerty for struggling students. Playing with language is important, but connecting it to their home languages would be even better. That would be ideal for some students, but it’s not feasible for teachers to learn and research all languages represented in the classroom. This challenge reminds me that teaching is not just about tools, but about meeting students where they are.

Unfortunately, in my school, bilingual and multilingual students are often treated as if they were monolingual. Bilingual students are still seen as ESOL students who do not know English, rather than learners who bring knowledge and experiences with them. We expect students who barely speak English at home to perform at or above the level of monolingual peers in the district.

Do they accomplish it? Yes! It is impressive to see how much their little brains can handle. But is it fair, or the best approach for them? These questions drive me to continually adapt my teaching and consider equity in literacy instruction.