lecture notes literacy instruction.pdf

Historically, the most heavily legislated domain of education has been reading

instruction, and it has also been the most cited measure for assessing educational

advancement (Tierney & Pearson, 2021). In How Education Policy Shapes Literacy

Instruction: Understanding the Persistent Problems of Policy and Practice (2022),

edited by Rachael Gabriel, scholars from all over the country contributed chapters

on perpetual educational concerns, such as retention, intervention, early childhood

and English language literacy acquisition, and coaching. The relationship between

literacy teaching, learning, and research is explored through policy documents and

peer reviewed research articles published from the 1960s to the present to establish

Chapter 1: Introduction

In chapter one, authored by Rachael Gabriel and Shannon Kelly, the historical

context of education legislation over the past one hundred and fifty years is

examined, from funding state universities in the nineteenth century, to educational

training provided by the GI Bill after the Second World War, to the National

Defense Education Act (NDEA), which placed an emphasis on higher education in

order to globally compete, and contribute to the Space Race. The chapter also

highlights other significant, historical events, such as the Social Security Act and

and tutors among low-income districts. The authors argue that by examining the

history of policy responses to students’ individual differences, such as race, class,

gender identity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, disability status, and other

identity markers, research, teaching, and even society evolves over time. They end

with the notion that because of the social and cognitive nature of reading, that

“systems that respond to reading difficulties can exacerbate inequity” (p. 6-7). This

chapter serves as a framing for the entire book, as all the following chapters

encapsulate these claims.

Chapter 2: Retention in Grade and Third Grade “Trigger” Laws: History,

Politics, and Pitfalls.

This chapter, authored by Gabriel P. DellaVecchia, discusses the current third grade

retention reading laws in the United States, which as of the publication of this book,

have been enacted by twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia. The laws

came to be popular due to concerns about standardized test scores, the impact of

reading on general academics, and third grade being identified as a vital point in a

child’s education. DellaVecchia examines the history of these laws, dating back to

academic performance, discussing the negative impact on high school graduation

rates, social-emotional well-being, and economic outcomes. DellaVecchia

proclaims that the focus on retention takes away from important conversations

about literacy and advocates for an increased focus on supporting teachers instead.

Since students of color are more likely to be retained, he ends by doubting the

genuine purpose of the retention laws, suggesting that they are ill-intentioned and

contribute to the “school to prison nexus” (p. 47). Again, he argues for alternatives,

such as universal pre-K, and stresses the need for literacy scholars to become more

involved in the policy space to impart research and knowledge onto policy makers.

His work is vital for any state considering adopting a retention law, or for any state

reading programs in K-12 education, and all the different terminology that’s been

used to describe remedial reading programs. Frankel provides commentary on the

history of the word remediation, its ties to medicine, and how remedial reading has

been described as an illness to be cured. She argues that remedial reading programs

tend to focus on compliance with policies, instead of being responsive to students’

needs, which tends to involve separate curricula and programming. This creates

disjointed programming from the classroom instruction, which can impact transfer

of knowledge and consistency across classrooms. Within the context of history and

policy, Frankel argues that the historical focus on phonics within the reading

remediation space does not always account for the multi-dimensional nature of

reading, and that readers need to be understood holistically, from multiple data

points. From the passage of ESEA, to creation of A Nation at Risk (1983), resources

have been allocated to provide support to students to tackle what has been described

as a reading crisis. With the formation of the National Reading Panel (NRP) in

2000, policymakers required that all programming intended to support students’

reading be based on “scientific” reading research (the basis for NCLB), which

required research based instructional practices and programs focused on early

reading. Frankel maintains that, to reform remedial reading programs, decision

makers must focus on dynamic profiles of readers, versus a singular diagnosis of

Chapter 4: Early Reading Instruction: Politics and Myths About Materials

and Methods.

This chapter is written by Natalia Ward and Nora Vines. Though federal literacy

policy had little to say about the nature of early reading instruction for two hundred

years, this chapter examines early reading instruction and related policy. After the

passing of ESEA, Ward and Vines describe how a combination of factors including

changing demographics in the country, the passage of the first iteration of the

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 1975, as well as the publication of

compelling, though, is how the authors use the context of history and policy to

discuss the current Science of Reading (SoR) movement. They use the example of

Emily Hanford’s series of publications (2018), which argued that explicit phonics

instruction in the early elementary grades is a universal remedy, and how this,

coupled with the concept of knowledge building, are what SoR supporters are

advocating for in terms of reform. Ward and Vines question what knowledge is or,

more importantly, whose knowledge should be included in these curricula when we

are advocating for a knowledge building curriculum. They also question the

accountability of curricula publishers, especially when teachers may only have

access to a single message about the teaching of reading, without evidence that it’s

effective. The question also comes up about how to make instruction more

culturally sustaining when schools must adhere to prescriptive curricula and

guidance. Instead, the authors call for adaptive literacy practices which meet the

needs of individual students, and that a well-rounded reading education is provided

to students, which includes access to caring and knowledgeable teachers, the use of

high quality, culturally and linguistically sustaining materials which promote a love

of reading. As we navigate the commentary of our most recent wave of education

reform as an educational community, these are vital questions to consider while

engaging in discourse.

About It (1955) up through Hanford’s Hard Words (2018), there has been public

concern for students learning how to read. Northrop notes that dating back two

hundred years ago, early reading difficulties were believed to be caused by “word

blindness, eye problems, and emotional disturbance…” (p. 123). Reading

difficulties were not addressed by educational policy until the passage of ESEA. As

framed in ESEA, poverty directly resulted in reading difficulties, and the remedy

was extra instruction, provided by reading teachers. Around the same time, the

theory emerging that reading difficulties were caused by a problem in the brain,

which led to the passing of IDEA in 1975. Northrop argues that policy itself

changed the implications for reading difficulties from environmental issues to

based on specific requirements in the policy, and she makes parallels to the current

SoR movement. With the current SoR movement, there is a focus back to decoding

and language comprehension, which is showing up in policy. Northrop contends

that this shift to a one size fits all instruction could limit access to different types of

instruction students may need, and that policy impacts which students receive

reading intervention instruction primarily by the underlying assumption used in the

policy to identify who counts, or qualifies, as a struggling reader.

Chapter 6: A Language for Literacy Learning: Language Policy,

Bi/Multilingual Students, and Literacy Instruction.

The author of this chapter, Amber N. Warren, discusses instructional practices,

assessment, and teacher preparation of bilingual and multilingual students,

specifically in the United States, and how they directly connect to the related policy.

Warren recounts the history of bilingual education in the United States, beginning

with hundreds of thousands of students being taught German at the turn of the

twentieth century. However, following the first world war and due to a decreased

number of immigrants coming from Europe, bilingualism was seen as a problem

for national security, which directly shows how what was happening in the world

English only instruction and assessment, as well as students specifically from

disadvantaged backgrounds and Spanish speakers, the BEA did not represent the

cultural and linguistic diversity present in populations across the United States.

Additionally, after reported high dropout rates in cities, civil rights and community

groups began to advocate against an English only approach, and the push for using

culturally relevant materials was seen to enhance native language in order to

develop the English language emerged. The BEA was reauthorized many times

over decades, switching back and forth from a monolingualism approach to a

bi/multilingual approach. Warren points out that more expansive immigration

policies typically have more linguistically expansive education goals. Thus, the

research.

Chapter 7: How Literacy Policy Shapes Understandings of Teacher Quality:

Coaching, Evaluation, and Measures of Teacher Effectiveness.

This chapter, authored by Rachael Gabriel, focuses on the evolution of policies

related to teacher quality and their impact on reading achievement. Though state

and federal legislation was relatively silent on the notion of teacher quality until the

turn of the twenty first century, “examples of teacher evaluation systems from the

early 1900s included checklists of items related to hemlines, petticoats, and whether

and how it is appropriate for teachers to be seen with unmarried men in public” (p.

170). Gabriel provides examples such as IQ and achievement testing, as well as

readability formulae, to show how tools originally created for the military were

eventually adapted for educational purposes. Gabriel touches upon Bond and

Dykstra’s First Grade Studies (1967), Heath’s Ways with Words, and even the

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) reports from the

1980s to show how teacher quality was a research focus for a while before its

adoption in schools. Though literature on job embedded mentoring became

prevalent in the 1960s, the concept of coaching began to take hold in schools.

individually developed, to show how coaching models often take away teacher

autonomy, creativity, and expertise. Gabriel argues that despite its consistent failure

as a policy strategy, the assumption that materials and coaches can increase teacher

quality is showing up again in the most recent round of SoR laws that are being

passed across the country. She calls on the reader to consider how we have ended

up here again.

Chapter 8: Influence and Evidence in Reading-Related Policy

The final chapter was written by Rachael Gabriel and Shannon Kelly. After

also discuss the issue with peer reviewed research, and that it is often locked behind

a paywall, which leads to a decrease in access to those that most likely need access

to it the most. This model of research dissemination, coupled with how easily white

papers can travel, directly contributes to their popularity in terms of policy making.

White papers can be disseminated widely, oftentimes through social media, and for

no cost to the reader. Gabriel and Shannon continue, and note that, “what seems

like grassroots movements often have roots in, and resources drawn from, national

organizations, funded by a handful of powerful elites and reinforced by a loosely

coupled network of philanthropists, and Edutech companies whose stake in public

education is incredibly apparent” (p. 187). As consumers of educational reporting,

it’s important to be mindful of this, and consider how we can interrogate these

papers to consider accuracy, authorship, and intent, especially when we consider

how much of an impact these white papers have had on policy (and therefore

schools) throughout history. Aside from white papers, Gabriel and Kelly discuss

systemic issues in the educational space that could be used for reform. For example,

the idea that it takes three to five years to fully implement a new curriculum is

commonly accepted among researchers and could directly impact policy. However,

policies routinely require that schools and districts change curricula and interrupt

long term professional learning strategies with multiple other mandates. Though

communities, as well as factors such as engaging and culturally relevant texts and

individualized instruction. They state, “if we expand our understandings of

why/how students struggle with reading to consider the ways that students’

identities are affirmed or oppressed in school settings, and the ways their linguistic

competence is measured and developed, our prognostic frames might better match

the available evidence on retention and instead aim for alternative policy

solutions…” (p. 193). In concluding statements, Gabriel and Kelly maintain that

current reading policy relates back to past policy strategies that have been attempted

with limited success, including accountability, standards, and curriculum mandates.

Their final call to action is to consider who benefits from the perceived reading

for us against a particular law, policy, or even new curriculum in a school. This

book equips teachers, administrators, and policymakers with this knowledge to help

consider their positions, by studying the past to inform the present and future.