How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction: Understanding the Persistent Problems of Policy and Practice 3031085094, 9783031085093

Citation preview

How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction Understanding the Persistent Problems of Policy and Practice Edited by  Rachael Gabriel

How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction

Rachael Gabriel Editor

How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction Understanding the Persistent Problems of Policy and Practice

Editor Rachael Gabriel Department of Curriculum & Instruction University of Connecticut Storrs, CT, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-08509-3    ISBN 978-3-031-08510-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover pattern © Witthaya Prasongsin / gettyimages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Every generation has a handful of translators who connect ideas to action and inspire educators to think and work differently as a result of the findings of research. Dick Allington is one of the very finest. Because of his willingness to speak hard truths, set up harsh contrasts and hold a mirror up to taken-for-granted practices, he was highly sought after as a researcher, speaker, writer and teacher. He was also never without critics. Truth-telling is a trademark of Dick’s sharp, vivid, quick-witted and precise style. The substance behind that style is fueled by what many assume to be a nearly photographic memory for text, and an encyclopedic knowledge of peer reviewed research in his and other fields. Dick not only reads widely and voraciously in his field, but other scholarly fields, and therefore makes connections and notices synergies that few others find. He also loves to read history: massive, multi-inch tomes that can be steady companions on long flights, and that feed his curiosity about and love for people, including those he will never meet. It is therefore fitting that we dedicate this volume to him, on the occasion of his retirement. This book is, primarily, an effort to link the past to the present and future, and to understand each better in the process. In a career that spanned more than four decades, Dick published more than 20 books and 100s of articles. He has been invited to speak in every state and several countries, taught at three major universities, and mentored more than 50 doctoral students - including several of the authors in this bookand 100s of reading specialists whose work continues to enrich and lead the field. But, if you pull up a chair next to him, he won’t tell you about any of

that. He might tell you about a recent college basketball game, the small rural town he grew up in, his kids and grandkids, recent sunsets over his favorite lake, or what he’d recently read on a flight. If the conversation turns to schools, he might say something about his own: the one room school house tucked deep in the farm country of western Michigan, or the sprawling junior high school where he was first hired as teacher and coach (of the football team) in the 1960s. All this is because, for Dick Allington, literacy research and the work of teaching and learning has always been personal. Uncovering the inequitable treatment of poor students, students with reading difficulties and students without access to books and high quality instruction was always personal. Whenever we visited schools as a research team, we would always lose Dick to the school library or cafeteria (his two favorite places), and find him sitting on an absurdly small chair, deep in conversation with a child. He wrote to and for those children, advocating on their behalf, and using his position as a leader in the field to demand the changes needed for every child to develop powerful, flexible literacies- in every zip code, classroom and tiny chair. This text could not exist without his original research, commentaries or teaching, each of which is evident in the pages and reference sections that follow. As such it is an investment in the future, funded by his legacy, and fueled by his example. May your reading of this text and others be deep, wide and connected, and may your work be changed as a result.

Preface

This book traces the history of education legislation that relates to literacy instruction with particular attention to the literacy research and instructional practices of each period. There are two purposes for tracing the braided histories of research, policy, and practice when it comes to literacy instruction in K-12 schools. First, this approach enables us to understand the relationships between the three: when and how each informs the other, and why these relationships change over time. The second is to understand with more depth and authority what is newly at stake, and what each policy issue is being used to do when it inevitably comes back again. This, we trust, will allow readers to view current issues with historical context as well as against a backdrop of predictable vulnerabilities and challenges. Using peer-reviewed articles, reports, the text of legislative documents, and other artifacts published in each of the last six decades, we illustrate how issues were framed, what was at stake, and how policy solutions to persistent issues have been understood over time. In doing so we link a generation of citizens and scholars with research that illustrates trajectories of development for ideas, strategies, and solutions. For example, the political issue we know today as third-grade trigger laws, currently or recently on the ballots in several states, has roots in debates which are over a hundred years old. In the chapter on retention policies, readers will be able to trace the trajectory of retention as a policy issue, including the nature of research on the topic over the past 70 years, how this intersects with understandings of reading and literacy as a cognitive and social construct, vii

viii 

PREFACE

and the structure of the debate (positions, alliances, politics) that lead us to the current moment. Understanding how retention has been deployed as a political tool with implications for reading assessment and instruction in the past frames how we understand it in contemporary politics and informs how we might imagine a future that bends toward more equitable and sustainable policies. Following the trajectories of contentious policy issues with direct implications for literacy teaching, learning, and research, we illustrate the nature of policy change over time, and the varied relationships between policy and research. To analyze and compare these relationships when considering policies over time, we draw upon multiple analytic frameworks. Though each author or author team engages their own lenses and tools for analysis, all chapters engage with what Kingdon (1984) referred to as “streams and windows” within which an issue (e.g., teacher quality) comes to be framed as a policy problem (Coburn, 2006) because of the confluence of particular politics, problems, and concurrent policies. In addition, each chapter engages the analytic tools of framing theory (Benford & Snow, 2000) to highlight the multiple ways an issue is framed as a problem that has a policy-related solution. Framing theory builds on Goffman’s 1974 essay on frame analysis, which asserts that everyday experiences are interpreted through frameworks that are evoked in the ways information is presented. For example, if an ad portrays a child laughing and running through a field of wildflowers as the background to information about allergy medication, the framework for understanding this may involve thinking of medication as a way to improve life, gain freedom, and be more natural or connected to nature. If, instead, the information is framed by a presentation from doctors in white coats standing in labs, it might be understood within a scientific or clinical framework--with the medication curing the allergy problem. In their later work examining how social movements develop, Benford and Snow (1986) describe three types of frames: diagnostic frames, which identify or state a social problem to be solved; motivational frames, which explain why the problem is important to solve, and prognostic frames, which identify or prescribe a solution to the problem. These are sometimes referred to as motivation, problem, and solution frames. Following Coburn (2006) and Coburn and Woulfin (2012), we apply these three types of frames to education policy that relates to literacy

 PREFACE 

ix

instruction. In doing so, we trace the history of a policy as it is (re)framed and debated over time in order to uncover patterns and shifts in the positions, and narratives implicated by the issue. We use this approach to explore issues in six categories: 1. Retention 2. Remediation 3. Early literacy instruction 4. Differential treatment of students with reading difficulties 5. Language policy and literacy instruction for language learners 6. Teacher quality These topics are among the most important topics in local, state, and national policy. Understanding the foundations and trajectories of such issues and arguments is vital in the study and design of future research, advocacy, and policymaking efforts to produce substantive, positive change. Storrs, CT

Rachael Gabriel

References Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/22345 Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00028312043003343 Coburn, C.  E., & Woulfin, S.  L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. http:// doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.

Contents

1 Introduction  1 Rachael Gabriel and Shannon Kelley 2 Retention  in Grade and Third-Grade “Trigger” Laws: History, Politics, and Pitfalls 11 Gabriel P. DellaVecchia 3 Remedial  Reading Programs: Identification, Instruction, and Impacts of a Separate System for Learning 61 Katherine K. Frankel 4 Early  Reading Instruction: Politics and Myths About Materials and Methods 89 Natalia Ward, Nora Vines, and Rachael Gabriel 5 Cumulative  Disadvantage: Differential Experiences of Students with Reading Difficulties121 Laura Northrop 6 A  Language for Literacy Learning: Language Policy, Bi/Multilingual Students, and Literacy Instruction139 Amber N. Warren and Natalia Ward

xi

xii 

Contents

7 How  Literacy Policy Shapes Understandings of Teacher Quality: Coaching, Evaluation, and Measures of Teacher Effectiveness169 Rachael Gabriel 8 Conclusion:  Influence and Evidence in Reading-Related Policy187 Rachael Gabriel and Shannon Kelley Afterword199 Index201

Notes on Contributors

Gabriel P. DellaVecchia  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Danielle  Dennis College of Education and Professional Studies, University of Rhode Island, Providence, RI, USA Katherine K. Frankel  Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Rachael  Gabriel  Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA Shannon Kelley  Literacy Studies, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA Laura Northrop  Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA Nora Vines  University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Natalia Ward  East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA Amber N. Warren  Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

xiii

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2 Fig. 3.1

Cumulative adoption of third-grade reading laws over time. Note. Third-grade reading laws passed in Arkansas (2009) and Iowa (2012) were rescinded in 2017. Two states with fourthgrade reading laws, Louisiana (currently suspended) and Wisconsin, are not reflected in this figure 19 Maryland’s reading law [Md. Code Ann., Art. 77 § 98D (1976)] 40 Contrasting etymologies of “remediation” 62

xv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1

Timeline of third-grade reading laws ESSA’s definition of “comprehensive literacy instruction” Evolution of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reading policy & students with reading difficulties

14 106 110 132

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction Rachael Gabriel and Shannon Kelley

“History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of reference, our identities, and our aspirations.” —James Baldwin, 1965

Reading instruction is the most legislated area of education and the most frequently referenced metric for measuring educational progress. Though many texts currently examine the history, nature, and analysis of education policy, few if any academic texts take up the strand of reading-related policies over time. Nevertheless, reading instruction has long been implicated in key education policy debates over time and remains on the docket of state and local legislatures year after year. This volume focuses on a set of

R. Gabriel (*) Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_1

1

2 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

policy issues that reemerge as over time as predictably as the peaks on a heart-rate monitor rise and fall in rhythmic succession. They include issues that directly relate to literacy instruction such as retention in grade, teacher quality, teaching for emergent bilinguals, remediation of reading difficulties, addressing unequal opportunities to learn, and the content and pedagogy of early literacy instruction. Though woven throughout the story of education legislation of the last 150  years, each reemergence bears the hallmarks of its historical context and belies the vulnerabilities threatening feelings of security in the country as a whole. As DellaVecchia points out in his analysis of retention in grade, recurring policy issues, and pendulum swings in practice, are sometimes the result of opposing epistemic beliefs about how learning happens and how behaviors change. Coburn and Woulfin (2012) have described this as a difference in orientation toward support or accountability (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012; Gabriel & Woulfin, 2017) as the primary mechanism of policy. Even more telling, however, than orientations toward learning or behavior change is the question of whether and how children whose learning varies from the norm should be taught in public schools. In other words, what do we do with individual differences? In this introduction, we orient readers to the core and continued questions about reading as a target for policy and examine some of the throughlines that characterize federal education policy since the 1960s.

Core and Continued Questions What Makes Education a Policy Problem? The year was 1965, and the Billboard Top 100 included songs by Elvis and the Four Tops, as well as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. My Fair Lady won the Academy Award, and a seven-foot-one-inch high school basketball star, who would become known as Kareem Abdul Jabar, was already fielding college offers at the age of 17. The country was at war in Vietnam, and the year had been full of marches and demonstrations for

S. Kelley Literacy Studies, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected]

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

civil rights. These peaceful protests were often met with violence: water cannons, tear gas, and even the assassination of Malcolm X. The year 1965 was also a landmark year for domestic policy. The Social Security Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) were all signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the spring and summer of 1965. In other words, between the assassination of a president who was compared to King Arthur in Camelot in 1963 and the assassination of one of the most compelling and influential civil rights leaders in the history of the world in 1968, came an attempt to address the economics of poverty by increasing funding to schools in lowincome neighborhoods. At the time, there was no Department of Education at the federal level. There was no previous major legislation related to elementary or secondary education. The limited goals of federal education policy before 1965 were primarily focused on investing in higher education as an economic imperative, defense imperative, and finally a social imperative. The first time there was federal interest in education it was to fund the land grants that anchor many of the large state universities of the Northeast and Midwest. These land grant institutions were meant to support and create infrastructure for agriculture, science, defense, and engineering (Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890). They were created to support a country in the midst of an Industrial Revolution, which needed scientists, engineers, and food producers more than it needed students to engage with a liberal arts education. Thus the policy problem solved by the Morrill Land Grants was framed as a changing economy for which college graduates were not always prepared. The solution was to create institutions of higher education specifically focused on fields of study that met the country’s economic imperatives. The next major education legislation was likewise framed as an economic problem with a policy solution: veterans returning from war needed retraining for jobs that may not have even existed in pre-war America. The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, now known as the GI Bill, was an answer to the challenge of reintegration for veterans of the Second World War. As the country entered the Cold War, the Russian launch of Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, became the catalyst for yet another higher education funding bill, this time in the form of the National

4 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958. Though bills framed as education policy had been before Congress many times, none had come close to passing on their own merits. When framed as a policy solution to a foreign policy problem, however, education funding sailed through both houses. The goal of the NDEA, like the Morrill Land Grant Acts, was to fund specific areas of higher education in order to generate more of the scientists and engineers the country needed to be competitive in the Space Race and global economy. Together with the GI Bill, the NDEA more than doubled the college population over 20 years. These are widely regarded as the most successful policies related to education because of their ability to solve the problem they aimed to solve: the NDEA and the GI Bill put more men into college in STEM fields and made the United States more competitive in the Space Race as well as in the global economy. Johnson’s 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was a departure from previous education-related policy both in form and in function. First, it was an education bill rather than a bill focused on defense or economic growth that included education as a strategy within it. Second, it took aim at a social phenomenon, aiming to “level the playing field” for students whose neighborhoods offered a disadvantaged starting point for learning. This explicit focus on social inequality represented a departure. Though associated with Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” it framed poverty as a societal problem to which education could be a solution, rather than a security problem to which defense, strategy, or economics could be a solution. Finally, it is the first law to engage K-12 education rather than focusing primarily on higher education. Moreover, rather than funding particular areas of study, it funded school libraries, teacher professional development, and additional teachers and tutors for students in low-income districts, among other things. What Makes Reading Instruction a Policy Problem? ESEA was passed in April 1965, four months before the Civil Rights Voting Act, which outlawed the use of literacy tests as a prerequisite for voting. Property ownership, gender, and literacy—in that order—were used as barriers aimed at disenfranchising women, the poor, and minoritized racial groups. Literacy, its instruction, assessment, and flexible use have always been used to oppress minoritized groups both explicitly through laws and implicitly through biases in assessment (Willis, 2008),

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

curriculum (Sleeter & Carmona, 2016), and instruction (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris & Alim, 2017; Muhammad, 2020). The story of reading policy in America is, in many ways, the study of race and class America. In the war on poverty, battles are fought and won based on access to literacy development and the power it provides to fully participate in and even change society. In the ongoing battle for civil rights, policies that create more opportunities to learn are often followed or reauthorized into policies that have been used to create separate and unequal systems for learning that systematically disenfranchise poor students, students of color, and students developing English as a language for learning. Literacy, and reading in particular, is used as a proving ground for educational ideas, a litmus test for the impact of policy and reform strategies, and both a primary and secondary measure of the outcomes achieved through education in public schools. As such, it reveals the impact of individual differences on students’ opportunities to learn perhaps more than any other subject area. This means it serves as both a diagnostic and a prognostic frame for issues of race, class, gender identity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, disability status, and other identity markers among children and youth. Indeed, tracing the history of policy responses to students’ individual differences as learners shows exactly how theory, technology, and society evolve over time. How Do Public Schools Manage Students’ Individual Differences? Differences in reading development have been understood in a variety of ways over time. In the late nineteenth century, reading difficulties were understood as a physical problem related to the eye. Dyslexia was referred to as “word blindness,” and problems with reading were addressed with glasses, if at all. At this time, scientists’ only opportunity to see or learn about the brain was to dissect cadavers. Thus we understood reading difficulty based on the physical reality that was observable to us from the outside of a human body: the eyes. Between the two world wars, as psychology was blossoming into a field of study distinct from any roots in mysticism, religion, philosophy, or biology, the notion of a mental state and mental processes allowed educators and others to imagine that reading was an “in-the-mind” process and that issues like memory, speed, and processing might underlie difficulties or variation in the results of reading instruction. Around this time, IQ testing was developed, and reading difficulties could be understood as related to

6 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

overall intellect and intellectual processes. These constructs were invisible, but popularly associated with the head, if not with an understanding of the brain that rapidly develops in sophistication. During this time, head circumference was used to predict intelligence based on the idea that a larger brain signified intelligence. Scientists mapped the skulls of people considered to be deviant, such as criminals and those with developmental disabilities, in order to infer the areas of the brain that might be involved. Without imaging tools to understand the brain itself from inside the skull, this period of time took an outside-in approach. The combination of the industrial revolution with its factories and assembly lines, and the vocabulary and social awareness of psychology and intelligence allowed literacy to be understood as something that varied based on intelligence, and reading difficulties as a problem of the not-yet-­ visible brain. Those who struggled to learn to read often did not learn, and either left school early or without fully developing independent literacy skills. As cognitive psychology emerged as a field of study, mental processes were better understood as cognitive processes within an information-­ processing paradigm. This period, from the 1950s through the 1970s, located reading difficulties within the brain and viewed it in much the same way that an early computer would be viewed: as a machine that could be programmed or reprogrammed to behave or respond in certain ways. As imaging techniques improved, the nature of cognitive processing came to be understood as the results of neural networks. Neurologists, in addition to psychologists, became interested in reading as a topic of study. The construction and activation of neural networks became the new metaphor for understanding reading and reading difficulties. Students with reading difficulties were said to be “wired differently,” or needing to be “rewired,” and learning was understood as a process of making and reinforcing connections. As brain imaging techniques continue to be refined, it is increasingly clear that brain activity is not the whole story when it comes to reading and reading difficulties. Genetic and epigenetic predispositions are implicated in certain reading disorders. Social and cultural differences are implicated in unequal access to instruction as well as to accurate diagnoses of difficulty. What counts as appropriate, responsive, sustaining, and ambitious pedagogy varies based on the sociocultural and sociohistorical context of a school community, and the location of each student’s identity within that community. That is, it is increasingly clear that reading is not

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

just a set of electrical impulses coursing through the brain. It is a social and relational activity that is developed in and through interactions and used for social, relational, and cognitive growth. Because of this, systems that respond to reading difficulties can exacerbate inequity. As Northrop and Frankel will describe, many of the policies aimed at addressing individual differences located in the mind or the brain end up exacerbating different opportunities made accessible to students based on race, class, or gender. The cognitive is social, and the social is cognitive when it comes to the processes of public education. Therefore, as you engage with the discussions, artifacts, and questions in each of the chapters that follow, consider who benefits and who becomes vulnerable from each formulation of reading, reading difficulty, and reading achievement. We challenge you to consider when and how structures aimed at addressing variation among individual pathways to literacy create or exacerbate inequality. Finally, we challenge you to consider how the relationships between understandings of the social world, the findings of research, and the implications of policy both set and limit opportunities for children to learn to read.

In This Volume Each chapter within this volume traces the trajectory of one policy issue over time. As such they are each in-depth, but partial treatments of a complex set of interconnected histories that relate to specific political, historical, social contexts of education in the United States. Each chapter returns us to roughly the same set of federal laws, but the legacies of those laws lead through different pathways of thought, experience, and influence. As each issue criss-crosses the others, the authors identify highlights and landmarks in research, history, and policy, as well as artifacts and references that can be used to elaborate and make connections beyond each chapter. These explorations are as follows. Retention, Remediation, and Reality (Chaps. 2, 3, and 5) The second chapter, written by Gabriel DellaVecchia, is titled “Retention in Grade and Third-Grade “Trigger” Laws: History, Politics, and Pitfalls.” This sweeping examination of the development and trajectory of mandatory third-grade reading retention laws in states across the United States offers insight into the underlying assumptions about reading and reading

8 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

difficulty that motivate such legislation. The author provides an historical analysis of state retention laws and research on associated student outcomes to trace how policymakers often use narrow frames of understanding about learning to read and teaching reading that have had significant, often negative, implications for students who have been retained. In addition, DellaVecchia’s careful examination of individual state retention policies provides a nuanced look at how policy ideas take hold and spread across different settings. Katherine Frankel addresses the long and varied history of policy surrounding remedial reading instruction in Chap. 3. Beginning with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 and culminating with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, Frankel identifies how policy and research shifts in the identification of reading disability have shaped the nature, purpose, and content of remedial reading programs over time, arguing that these programs have primarily been developed from deficit-based frames and prescriptive instruction, particularly in secondary contexts. She concludes the chapter with an overview of previously overlooked and more current research on how teachers and students experience these programs and offers suggestions for how these new understandings can support the development of more equitable programming for students who need specialized reading support. Chapter 5 by Laura Northrop, highlights how the definition of reading difficulty in federal and state policy has influenced which students are served and how. Through her analyses of these policies, Northrop argues that the underlying assumptions in each policy about why readers struggle have been dominated by persistent assumptions that students’ reading difficulties lie primarily within the individual or as a result of environmental factors like poverty, which has significantly impacted which schools and students receive funding for supplemental reading support. Language, Literacy Teaching, Literacy Teachers (Chaps. 4, 6, and 7) Chapter 4 by Natalia Ward, Nora Vines, and Rachael Gabriel examine how major federal education policy has approached the issue of early literacy. Through an examination of major legislation, reports, statements, and white papers on early literacy, the authors develop a comprehensive picture of the major debates in early literacy instruction and assessment over the

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

last 50 years. In addition, they offer a set of suggestions for how such a policy can evolve to be more equitable and inclusive in future iterations. Chapter 6 by Amber N. Warren and Natalia Ward outline research and policy approaches to meeting the literacy needs of bi/multilingual students from the 1960s to the present. The authors illustrate how national dispositions toward immigration and related federal policy have impacted the nature and aims of the Bilingual Education Act and subsequent legislation for educating bi/multilingual students in largely subtractive ways which limit students’ abilities to develop or retain substantial literacy in their native language. They conclude by offering a set of suggestions for expanding notions of biliteracy through more complex understandings of culture and language and enhanced teacher education for supporting bi/multilingual students. Chapter 7 by Rachael Gabriel traces the history of teacher accountability measures and their relationship to attempts at enhancing literacy instruction since the 1960s. Gabriel highlights landmark studies and relevant legislation on teacher effectiveness to argue that, in many ways, there have been circular trends in what teachers are expected to know and do to teach reading and how that knowledge and skill has been evaluated. Gabriel suggests that as literacy research expands its lenses on what literacy is, how it develops, and what contextual factors matter most for its development, perhaps so too will policy on what teachers should know and be able to do when teaching reading.

As You Read On This introduction’s opening quote casts history as the source of some of our frames of reference. We hope that these chapters, their descriptions and arguments, become frames for your interpretation of policy and advocacy now and in the future. As issues continue to reemerge again and again, as pendulums swing and return, the question of who benefits and who becomes vulnerable remains vital. However, the recognition that policy issues are never novel or natural phenomena out there to be discovered, but are framed and constructed for particular purposes and ends allows us to interpret and respond to them differently, perhaps with more awareness of our own frames of reference, identities and aspirations.

10 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

References Coburn, C.  E., & Woulfin, S.  L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008 Gabriel, R., & Woulfin, S. (2017). Making teacher evaluation work: A guide for teachers and leaders. Heinemann. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. Muhammad, G. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press. Sleeter, C., & Carmona, J. F. (2016). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. Teachers College Press. Willis, A. (2008). Reading comprehension research and testing in the U.S. undercurrents of race, class and power in the struggle for meaning. Lawrence Earlbaum & Associates.

CHAPTER 2

Retention in Grade and Third-Grade “Trigger” Laws: History, Politics, and Pitfalls Gabriel P. DellaVecchia

The Present Day Join me in a drab government conference room, protest already in progress: Across the street is the state Capitol: ornate, beautiful, full of history. This room is not that. It’s shades of beige and faux wood paneling. It looks a little like the set for The People’s Court, but this room doesn’t feel like it has anything to do with The People. The four of us from our small activist coalition file into the room. We’re wearing matching t-shirts, in glowing safety green, that plead “Amend Read by Grade 3: Make RETENTION an OPTION.” We take our accustomed places in the front row. The lobbyists making up the rest of the sparse audience give us a bored look. The 13 members of the House Education Committee sit at a long table. The eight Republican members are on the right, the five Democrats on the left: I wonder if the arrangement is a coincidence. The chairwoman, who is

G. P. DellaVecchia (*) University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_2

11

12 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

both a former art teacher and, improbably, a diehard conservative, pretends not to recognize us, even though we have met with her personally before. The committee members flip through piles of papers, brows furrowed, giving the impression of careful consideration. The chairwoman calls the meeting to order. We’ve been to enough of these to know the drill. The committee typically alternates weeks: one week, they hear testimony on bills, the next week, they vote. Today is a voting day. In rapid succession, the chair announces each of the three bills up for consideration. For each, all of the Republicans vote in support, all of the Democrats vote against. This is also typical. Because the Republicans control the majority, they have the power to outvote the Democrats each and every time. Within five minutes, all three bills have been approved, the Democrats have been steamrolled again, and the meeting is adjourned. As members of the public, we are permitted to submit comment cards. As usual, we had submitted cards to advocate for a pending bill to amend the mandatory retention provision of the state reading law. However, the power of the majority party lies not only in their ability to outvote the minority. The majority party appoints the chair, and the chair sets the agenda. If the chair decides not to schedule a bill for discussion, it is not discussed. With the bill not on the agenda for today, yet again, the chair had not allowed us time to voice our comments. We file into the hallway, dejected. So, how did we find ourselves here, a quartet of literacy activists wearing garish green shirts? Why was it so hard to make our voices heard? What law were we trying to amend? To answer these questions, we will need to take a step back in time. But, before we do so, some definitions are in order. The law that fueled our protest was a third-grade reading law, sometimes known as a third-grade “trigger” law (CCSSO, 2019). These laws often have snappy names, depending on the state, like the Reading to Ensure Academic Development (READ) Act in Colorado or Read by Grade 3 in Michigan. Regardless of the name, all third-grade reading laws establish a “trigger,” typically a score on an assessment, that needs to be met for a student to be promoted from third grade to fourth grade (CCSSO, 2019). Third-grade reading laws are based on a set of assumptions that “frame” the problem, actively constructed by policymakers as they emphasize certain aspects of the social world while excluding others, thereby giving credence to solutions that fit within that framing (Coburn, 2006; Shepard &

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

13

Smith, 1989). The first assumption is that students are not learning to read properly, an assumption that presupposes the existence of a “proper” form of reading instruction (e.g., Hanford, 2018) and a “proper” form of reading: the kind easily measured by standardized tests. The second assumption is that this lack of reading attainment impacts students’ future academic performance and their chances of graduating from high school (Hernandez, 2012). This is the idea of a cumulative disadvantage, as discussed in Chap. 6. The third assumption it that third grade is the “line in the sand” between “learning to read” and “reading to learn” (Fiester, 2010). The fourth assumption, linked to the first, is that reading is a discreet set of skills, learned in a linear fashion, with specific benchmarks of achievement determined by age (i.e., there is such a thing as a “third grade reading level”) (Chall, 1983; Smith & Shepard, 1987). The fifth, and key, assumption, is that this reading level can be determined using an assessment, usually in the form of a standardized test (Au, 2016). This set of assumptions generally fall within a diagnostic frame (Coburn, 2006): defining the “problem” in very specific ways, and consequently, assigning blame to very particular causes. Depending on the state, third-grade reading laws may also include components of a prognostic frame (Coburn, 2006): stipulating various supports and interventions (CCSSO, 2019) intended to provide solutions to the problem. Most specify the creation and monitoring of some form of individualized reading improvement plan. Others provide for enrollment in summer school, hiring additional literacy interventionists, or increasing the amount of teacher professional development. These strategies are supported by research and are uncontroversial. The controversial component of reading laws has to do with retention in grade. Retention goes by many names: formally, it is sometimes known as nonpromotion. More colloquially, retention is referred to as being “held back,” “left back,” or “flunking.” Regardless of the name, the concept is that a child who has failed to reach specific benchmarks should repeat their current grade rather than moving on to the next grade. Retention is contrasted with social promotion, the practice of sending a child to the next grade in order to remain with their same-age peers. At the time of this writing, 27 states plus the District of Columbia have some version of a third-grade reading law (see Table 2.1). In ten of these states, retention is allowed, as a policy left to local districts, or suggested. In states where retention is suggested, a low test score usually requires a conversation with the student’s family, discussing the child’s progress and

14 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Table 2.1  Timeline of third-grade reading laws State

Law passed

Retention

Citation

Maryland Texas New Jersey District of Columbia Illinois Delaware California Georgia Missouri Florida Connecticut New Mexico West Virginia Arizona Indiana Oklahoma Tennessee Colorado Ohioa North Carolina Mississippi Alaskab Washington South Carolina Nevada Michigan Minnesota Alabama

05/17/1976 07/13/1984 01/17/1986 04/26/1996 08/06/1996 07/13/1998 09/22/1998 03/21/2001 07/01/2001 05/15/2002 06/06/2006 06/15/2007 06/02/2009 05/18/2010 03/25/2011 05/01/2012 05/15/2012 05/17/2012 06/25/2012 07/02/2012 04/18/2013 09/10/2013 09/28/2013 06/11/2014 06/03/2015 10/06/2016 05/30/2017 05/31/2019

Allowed Allowed Allowed Mandatory Allowed Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Allowed Allowed Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Allowed Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Allowed Allowed Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Allowed Mandatory

Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 7-202 Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.721 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:35-4.9 D.C. Code Ann. § 38-1803.21 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/10-20.9a Del. Code Ann. tit. 14, § 153 Cal. Educ. Code § 48070.5 Ga. Code Ann. § 20-2-283 Mo. Ann. Stat. § 167.645 Fla. Stat. Ann. § 1008.25 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 10-265g N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22-2C-6 W. Va. Code Ann. § 18-2E-10 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15-701 511 Ind. Admin. Code 6.2-3.1-3 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 70, § 1210.508C Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-3115 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22-7-1205 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3313.608 N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 115C-83.7 Miss. Code. Ann. § 37-177-11 Alaska Stat. Ann. § 14.03.072 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 28A.655.230 S.C. Code Ann. § 59-155-160 Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 392.760 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 380.1280f Minn. Stat. Ann. § 120B.12 Ala. Code § 16-6G-5

Note. In some states, the law took effect immediately. In others, implementation was delayed, or the components phased in over a series of years. All states with mandatory retention provide for at least one “good cause” exemption. Iowa and Arkansas formerly had mandatory retention but have since removed all retention language from their reading laws. Wisconsin has the equivalent of a fourth-grade reading law [Wis. Stat. § 118.33(6)(a)]. Louisiana had a fourth-grade reading law (1999–2017), currently suspended [La. Rev. Stat. § 17:24.4] In 2003, Ohio passed a promotion law that allowed retention. In 2012, an amendment made retention mandatory a

b

In early 2021, a mandatory retention bill was introduced in the Alaska Senate. It will likely pass

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

15

plans for improvement, and then collaboratively deciding whether retention is in the best interest of the child. The other 17 states and the District of Columbia have reading laws with mandatory retention. While the laws in these states often include exemptions for certain groups of students, such as English language learners or students already receiving special education services, the difference is that the retention decision is not one made with the family: the state declares that the child will be retained, and it is up to the family to request an exemption. You may be thinking, “So what? If a child can’t read, shouldn’t they have to repeat the grade? What’s the problem with retention?” Conversely, you may be wondering, “Is a reading law really necessary to make sure students learn how to read? Wouldn’t it be better for schools to partner with families to support struggling readers, rather than threatening to retain their children?” To explore answers to these questions, we will take a closer look at retention: where it came from, what research says about it, and how it become so closely identified with literacy policy and thirdgrade reading laws. Roots in U.S. Politics Discussions about third-grade reading laws in the United States, whether in the popular press or in the research literature, inevitably mention Florida (e.g., Balkcom, 2014; Jacob, 2017; Miller, 2014). As we will discuss later in the chapter, laws that specify criteria for promotion, and include retention as a consequence, have deep roots that long predate Florida’s legislation. In fact, Florida itself was not the first state to pass a “Florida-style” reading law. That being said, Florida figures heavily in the narrative around this issue, so we will begin our exploration there.  000s: Rise of the “Florida Formula” 2 Starting in the mid-1990s, Florida embarked on a five-point plan of school reform that has come to be called the “Florida Formula” (Di Carlo, 2015). This set of policy initiatives included A–F school ratings, school choice, standards-based accountability for students, performance pay, and alternative routes to teacher certification. In the decades since, the “Florida Formula” has come to be associated with the Republican Party and a conservative education policy agenda, but the first components were passed under Democratic governor Lawton Chiles and his short-term successor, Buddy MacKay, with the support of a Republican-controlled legislature (Brown, 1998).

16 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Republican John Ellis “Jeb” Bush, who ran as a staunch conservative, was sworn in as governor of Florida in January 1999. For two years, his time in office overlapped with the Texas governorship of his older brother, George W. Bush. The Bush brothers, who had well-publicized struggles with their own schooling, saw themselves as champions and reformers of education, and they both worked with their respective legislatures to institute strict, standards-based accountability measures (Meyer, 2012; Valencia & Villarreal, 2005). The elder Bush brought those reform ideas with him to the White House when he began his first term as President in January 2001, signing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425, 2002), a major revision and reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 20 U.S.C. § 6301, 1965), one year after taking office. NCLB later fell out of favor with both parties, but at the time, it passed with significant bipartisan support (U.S.  Department of Education, 2004). Although NCLB did not mandate retention, it did mandate standardized testing, ushering in an unprecedented expansion of high-stakes assessment (Au, 2016) and setting the stage for the creation, and proliferation, of third-grade reading laws. At the same time that NCLB was winding its way through the U.S. Congress, Governor Jeb Bush was continuing to champion education reform in Florida. Along with Georgia and Missouri, Florida was exploring ways of transforming existing broad laws against social promotion into more targeted accountability laws connected to standards. Within a 14-month span in 2001–2002, all three states approved legislation that included mandatory retention for students who failed to reach specific benchmarks. Florida’s was the last of the three to be signed into law, but its laser-focus on third-grade reading became the template for subsequent reading laws in other states. The initial results were inauspicious: in its first year of implementation, over 14% of Florida third graders were retained (Florida Department of Education, n.d.). Rather than being considered a disaster, the large number of students held back was interpreted as a sign that the law was doing what it was supposed to. Within a few years, the percentage of retained students stabilized at about 6%, and test scores seemed to improve (Florida Department of Education, n.d.). Governor Bush became evangelical about Florida’s success. He toured the country, trying to sell other states on Florida’s miracle (Meyer, 2012). In 2008, soon after completing his second term as governor, Jeb Bush launched the Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd), an

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

17

organization that aggressively promoted, and continues to promote, school reform policy priorities, such as third-grade reading legislation, in order to fulfill their mission of “building an American education system that equips every child to achieve his or her God-given potential” (Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2016). Unlike many education advocacy groups, ExcelinEd is not a grassroots organization. Over the years, their Board of Directors has been something of a Who’s Who in national Republican politics. Other than Jeb Bush as President and Chairman, the Board has included former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos—who had to step down from her position after joining the Trump administration (Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2016). Although technically a nonprofit, the organization regularly receives million-dollar donations from a very small number of wealthy sponsors. This largesse allows ExcelinEd to spread their messaging via paid lobbyists, with more than $600,000 per year spent on lobbying efforts.1  010s to Now: The Spread of a Dubious Policy 2 The efforts of Governor Bush and ExcelinEd were supported by an unexpected source. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) is a decades-old Baltimore-based nonprofit focused on the well-being of children in the United States. Unlike ExcelinEd, which is clearly aligned with the Republican Party, AECF tends to provide grants to more progressive organizations. Starting in 1990, AECF began publishing the annual KIDS COUNT Data Book to compile, and highlight, various indicators of child welfare.2 In 2012, consistent with wider trends in accountability and measurement, AECF began including standardized scores across various metrics, including reading proficiency, in the Data Book and associated publications.3 The effort to take a closer look at assessment results was consistent with their self-designated role of starting conversations around seemingly intractable issues affecting children, with ongoing educational disparities among racial and ethnic groups as a particular point of concern. 1  Because ExcelinEd is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, their tax returns are public. Lobbying expenses are reported on Form 990, Schedule C: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/260615175 2  https://datacenter.kidscount.org/publications 3  https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-KIDSCOUNTIndex-2012.pdf

18 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

During this era, AECF released a pair of reports: EARLY WARNING! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters (Fiester, 2010) and Double Jeopardy: How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation (Hernandez, 2012). Both reports were well intentioned, consistent with AECF’s mission of improving the welfare of children, and included a list of policy recommendations. Notably, retention was not one of the interventions mentioned in either report.4 However, once out in the world, research takes on a life of its own. The two reports were seized on by those in favor of third-grade reading laws. One or the other, or both, would figure heavily in policy conversations going forward, and they are consistently referenced in media reports about reading laws. In particular, the idea of third grade being a dividing line between “learning to read” and “reading to learn” from the Fiester report, and the correlation between third-grade reading skills and high school graduation rates from the Hernandez report, have been repeated ad nauseam by boosters of reading laws (e.g., Balkcom, 2014; Miller, 2014; Rose & Schimke, 2012). Bolstered by the AECF reports, ExcelinEd and other advocates of reading laws pushed harder, and the pace of adoption increased substantially. While it took about 35  years for 15 states and the District of Columbia to pass reading laws in the years leading up to 2011, it took only an additional 10 years for another 16 states to adopt reading legislation (see Fig. 2.1). Again, it is important to emphasize that neither of the AECF report authors advocated for retention, nor did they include retention as a suggested policy. Regardless, the AECF reports have been boiled down to talking points that have made it easier for lobbyists and politicians to provide justification for third-grade reading laws. The combined power of the AECF reports and extensive lobbying by ExcelinEd is reflected in a nine-state jump in reading law adoptions during 2012–2013 (see Fig. 2.1). The narrative thus far, about Jeb Bush-led educational reforms in Florida, the influence of No Child Left Behind on testing nationwide, and the lobbying efforts of ExcelinEd, makes for a straightforward story about the rise and spread of third-grade reading laws and one that is traced by 4  In May 2010, a group of AECF personnel, with an extensive list of philanthropic and community partners, launched the Campaign for Grade-Level Reading. The Campaign describes itself as being “driven” by these two reports: http://gradelevelreading.net/ resources. In many ways, the Campaign espouses the same goals, and uses much of the same language, as ExcelinEd. One key difference is that the Campaign makes no mention of retention.

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

19

30

Number of states

25 20 15 10 5 0 1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000 Year

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Fig. 2.1  Cumulative adoption of third-grade reading laws over time. Note. Thirdgrade reading laws passed in Arkansas (2009) and Iowa (2012) were rescinded in 2017. Two states with fourth-grade reading laws, Louisiana (currently suspended) and Wisconsin, are not reflected in this figure

other scholars. What I have relayed is true, but it is only part of the story. Like many histories, it places too much emphasis on individuals and organizations, without looking at contexts and systems. For the remainder of this chapter, I would like to complicate the Florida narrative, positioning it as just the latest stage in a longer saga about state versus federal influence in education, the ways in which elites maintain power, and the consistent erasure of student voices from their own educational experiences. To examine how retention is situated within these larger systems, and to emphasize why retention is such an important issue to tease apart, we will look at what the research has to say. We will then explore the broader movements that resulted in the current policy landscape. But first, before diving deeper into research and history, we will examine other policies and politics at play during the last two decades. Concurrent Policies Parallel with the rise of third-grade reading laws, two seemingly unrelated policies, school accountability measures and increased school choice, have also

20 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

proliferated since the turn of the millennium (both are described in the introduction to this volume).5 From what I shared earlier in the chapter, it might not surprise you to find that ExcelinEd supports both school accountability measures and school of choice legislation (Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2016). What is more surprising is to consider how these three seemingly unrelated reforms (third-grade reading laws, school accountability measures, and school choice) connect. ExcelinEd shares ideology with a broad swath of neoliberals, inside and outside of government, who believe that public schools should be dismantled in favor of full privatization (Au, 2016; Babones, 2015). According to this thinking, market forces will determine which schools succeed and which schools fail. This disregards the reality that for-profit charters seek to maximize profits, so it is in their best interest to avoid the additional expenses of providing services for students with special academic or behavioral needs (Bergman & McFarlin, 2020). This also has the effect of inflating charter school performance, by accepting students who perform well on standardized tests and leaving their lower-scoring peers in the traditional public school system. While I acknowledge that not all charter schools engage in these exclusionary tactics, local and state policies regarding charter schools make such decisions possible (Ahearn et  al., 2001; Lange et al., 2008; Rhim et al., 2019). Presuming positive intentions, these three policy priorities reflect a commitment to market forces and “individual responsibility.” More cynically, these policies come together to produce an intentional narrative of public school failure (Au, 2016). Imagine that a neighborhood school has a high percentage of third graders who are mandated to repeat third grade. Also, imagine that school receives Ds and Fs on their school report card and/or employs teachers who receive low marks because of student test scores. The reputation of that school quickly becomes tarnished and gets worse every year those metrics are repeated in the media. Regardless of how fundamentally flawed those metrics may be, the school’s increasingly battered reputation makes it seem as if the school is failing. Now, imagine a charter school opens nearby. Families, scared of the “failure” of their neighborhood school, will be desperate for an 5  Accountability and choice were literally the law of the land in the 2000s. The rarely used long title of NCLB is “An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice [emphasis added], so that no child is left behind” (Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425, 2002).

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

21

alternative. The charter school can advertise themselves as a solution to a failing system. After a few years, with dwindling enrollment, the neighborhood school closes. In a few instances, which add insult to injury, the building for the recently closed school is leased to a new charter school. Quietly but surely, piece by piece, the public school system is dismantled. The endgame for the privatization movement may look like New Orleans, which nearly completely dissolved their public school district after Hurricane Katrina, becoming the first city in the United States with almost all charter schools (Lay & Bauman, 2019). Returning to Coburn’s notion of a diagnostic frame (Coburn, 2006): public schools are framed as the problem, and private industry is the solution. Politics As troubling as these scenarios may be, it is essential to recognize that policies do not write themselves. It is easy to depersonalize legislation, talking about a bill or a law as the subject of a sentence, as if they have their own agency. But individuals write these documents, with intention, for the expressed purpose of changing our social compact with one another. Policies also do not develop in a vacuum. Consistent with the view of history that I expressed earlier in the chapter, policies are undoubtedly created by individuals, but politics are an indicator of larger systemic forces at play. We will briefly explore two political trends that cultivated the context for “trigger” laws: the growing influence of state legislatures and a philosophical difference between punishment and support.  he Growing Influence of State Legislatures T The development, spread, and perpetuation of third-grade reading laws are a direct result of an unusual feature of the educational system in the United States. Whereas most countries have a strong federal educational system, which usually makes decisions about national curriculum and educational policies, this is not the case in the United States. As conservative activists often point out, education is not mentioned at all in the U.S.  Constitution. Consequently, according to the tenth amendment, powers not assigned to the federal government are reserved by the states (U.S. Const. amend. X, n.d.). Since the 1990s, parallel with the growing movement for school accountability, conservative operatives have learned that the route to policy victories runs straight through state legislatures. As politics in the

22 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

United States have become increasingly polarized, and with legislative districts gerrymandered to produce predictable outcomes (Stephanopoulos, 2018; Stephanopoulos & McGhee, 2015), the majority of states currently have one-party trifectas: majorities, sometimes supermajorities, in both chambers of the state legislature and a lock on the governorship.6 With such a favorable composition, rather than fighting bruising battles in the U.S.  Congress, potentially controversial bills are nearly guaranteed passage in sympathetic states (Brownstein, 2021; Hertel-Fernandez, 2019). Acknowledging that both parties take advantage of this situation, Republicans are particularly adept at lining up support behind a single message and pushing legislation through (e.g., Caughey et al., 2017). The spread of third-grade reading laws is representative of this state-bystate playbook. Looking back to Table 2.1, eight states had retention laws on the books by the end of 2001. Any one of these laws could have been replicated in other states, but they were not. Instead, it was the Florida law in 2002 that was the template for all that followed. What was the difference? On one level, and a very literal one, the Florida law did become a template. Through his efforts as governor, and later with ExcelinEd, Jeb Bush literally provided other states with the language for third-grade reading laws.7 In state after state, a tractable legislator would introduce “their” reading initiative by simply adding their name to the provided template, making it seem as if the sponsored bill was their own creation (Progress Michigan, 2012). If legislators did the same with an exam or a term paper, it would be cheating or plagiarism, but because it is politics, this is business as usual. Using this strategy, bills spread quickly through states with majority Republican legislatures and governors, and are swiftly signed into law. This easy sharing of ready-made legislation is facilitated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a clearinghouse for conservative legislators in various states to share template bills with one another

6  As of this writing, Republicans control 23 trifectas, with 16 of those in place for at least a decade. Democrats control 15 trifectas, with only 4 of them in place for a decade or more. That leaves a mere dozen states with divided governments. Retrieved on August 10, 2021, from https://ballotpedia.org/State_government_trifectas 7  ExcelinEd’s “model policy,” updated in 2018, is available on their website: https:// www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ExcelinEdPolicyToolkit_K-3Reading_ ModelLegislation_2017-1.pdf

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

23

(Hertel-Fernandez, 2019; Penniman, 2002).8 At some point, enough states have similar laws that the movement generates its own momentum. A spate of adoptions in red states leads to pressure on legislators in purple states. The result is essentially a substitution for federal educational policy, except that it is a policy that is only applied to half of the country. What is especially insidious about the state-by-state strategy of introducing and passing legislation is the appearance of local control. State legislators put their own name on the bills that they introduce, even if the language was sourced from a template (Progress Michigan, 2012). Introducing such legislation allows politicians to signal that they are doing something about the “reading crisis” in the United States. This seemingly virtuous stance of “supporting reading improvement” creates a hurdle for anyone in opposition to the bill, regardless of the bill’s content, as any criticism carries the risk of being perceived as not being sufficiently concerned about reading achievement. It is important to note that families, educators, and researchers have repeatedly voiced concerns about the quality of literacy instruction in the United States and how it is resourced, or not (Gadsden, 1994). But these groups of stakeholders are not the ones advocating for third-grade reading laws (Huddleston, 2014). They are certainly not approaching state legislators with requests for retention mandates (CCSSO, 2019). Across the board, third-grade reading laws are a top-down proposition. When such bills are introduced, they usually start their journey in a legislature’s education committee. These committees meet during the day, during the week, making it a challenge for working families to attend. Instead, the audiences are filled with paid lobbyists representing moneyed interests from across the political spectrum (and occasional groups of activists wearing boldly colored t-shirts). Debate on bills in committees is far from front-page news, if covered by the media at all. It is essential to acknowledge that, as a direct result of activism and outcry from local constituents, the third-grade reading laws in some states do vary from the Florida template. For instance, the Michigan version of the bill was met with heavy resistance from concerned citizens, particularly a number of literacy researchers (e.g., Duke et al., 2014). Through their 8  ALEC’s model legislation is freely available to all. The language for third-grade reading laws in states with mandatory retention is based, in most cases verbatim, on Chapter 7 “Student Promotion to a Higher Grade” from ALEC’s A-Plus Literacy Act available here: https://www.alec.org/model-policy/the-a-plus-literacy-act/

24 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

advocacy, a significant number of supports and interventions were added,9 many of which have been incorporated into bills that followed in other states. In Colorado, retention was softened from mandatory to suggested while the bill was still under consideration.10 In Nebraska, the controversy over retention was threatening to overshadow the purpose of the legislation, so all mention of retention was stripped from the bill prior to its passage.11 In addition to bills being revised while still under consideration, enacted reading laws in many states have been amended over the years to increase the number of “good cause” exemptions: special circumstances that prevent certain groups of students from being considered for retention.  unishment vs. Support P While state legislatures provide the structure for the passage of third-grade readings laws, we need to look deeper, at ideology, to uncover the thought process that rationalizes such legislation as the solution to unsatisfactory reading outcomes. Taking that deeper look, we find a bifurcation that runs deeply through U.S. politics: a broader philosophical difference between punishment and support. This same difference in worldview can be found in topics as diverse as mandatory minimum sentencing, the death penalty, drug use, or any other number of issues that could potentially result in a choice between incarceration or treatment (Au, 2019). On one side of the debate is a firm belief in “the stick”: that the desire to avoid negative consequences provides the necessary motivation for a desired behavior (Roderick et al., 2003). In contrast to punishment, the other side of the debate involves a dedication to support. This side of the debate would point to paradigm shifts like decriminalization of drug use in favor of medical treatment, restorative justice, and the reallocation of funding from police budgets to mental health services. When considering a student who is struggling with reading, rather than threatening the child with retention, those with a “support” mindset would likely recommend a series of interventions tailored to that student’s needs, and likely enacted by a network of people.

9  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(vtgw42z1bcayrx0mr5cebwt4))/mileg.aspx?page=ge tobject&objectname=2015-HB-4822&query=on 10  https://legiscan.com/CO/bill/HB1238/2012 11  https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=31610

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

25

Examined through the lenses of these competing ideologies, the arguments for and against retention as an appropriate intervention for improving reading outcomes do not rely on data. The choice is not based on facts or statistics. The debate boils down to a philosophical difference: is it more effective to elicit a behavior by threatening a punishment, or is it better to surround the person in need with a system of supports and caring individuals? This debate also reveals a fundamental difference in the conception of what reading actually is: is reading a set of behaviors that can be executed, in linear and predictable ways? Or is reading more relational, connected intimately to emotions and imagination? How a person answers those questions will likely predict their stance on reading laws and, like all opinions, will likely remain stable regardless of additional evidence.

Themes, Foci, and Findings of Research At the outset of this chapter, I quoted an imagined skeptic asking “If a child can’t read, shouldn’t they have to repeat the grade? What’s the problem with retention?” Now that I have provided some historical context, we are ready to answer those questions with a dive into the extensive research on retention. Research on retention tends to focus on four target outcomes. Two are related to academic measures: reading achievement and high school graduation rates. Another body of work considers the social-emotional effects of retention, such as students’ emotions, social experiences, and engagement with school. A fourth, and underexplored area, asks questions about economic implications and the repercussions of retention beyond the school years, especially potential impacts on employment prospects and lifetime earnings. Outcome 1: Reading Achievement Concerns about reading achievement, or lack thereof, is the purported rationale behind the movement for third-grade reading laws, including the use of retention as an intervention. As such, it makes sense to look at evidence of academic gains. First, a caveat: in the previous section, I outlined a number of concerns about the use of standardized testing to measure reading achievement. The vast majority of studies looking at academic outcomes use such measures, so I caution interpreting the scores as making a definitive judgment about the reading abilities of the participating

26 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

students. However, setting concerns about validity aside, these studies have driven the debate around retention, so they are historically important. Still, there are more than a century’s worth of studies in this area, with at least five reports on academic outcomes for retained students published before 1930 (Jackson, 1975). As far back as 1911, 1928, and 1933 (as cited in Abidin et al., 1971), studies indicated that students who were socially promoted did better than their peers who had been held back. Similar findings have been reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted by Jackson (1975), Holmes and Matthews (1984), Holmes (1989) and Jimerson (2001a).12 Echoing a statement by Jackson (1975), Holmes and Matthews concluded “Those who continue to retain pupils at grade level do so despite cumulative research evidence showing that the potential for negative effects consistently outweighs positive outcomes” (1984, p. 232), a sentiment that Holmes reiterated in his follow-up review in 1989. Over time, a troubling trend began to emerge from the accumulated research on academic outcomes: even for the handful of studies that showed potential gains from retention, any positive effects seemed to be short-lived, fading out within a few years (Alexander et al., 1994; Holmes, 1989; Greene & Winters, 2007; Jimerson et al., 1997; Jimerson, 2001a; Peterson et al., 1987; Schwerdt et al., 2017; Xia & Kirby, 2009). Due to logistical challenges, tracking the impacts of retention over time is difficult, but longitudinal studies are crucial for exploring the ramifications of being held back. One of the earlier longitudinal studies was conducted by Peterson (1987), who tracked scores for four years, finding improvements for a year or two, but by the third year, he found no statistically significant differences between the scores of retained and promoted students. Peterson raised the important question of what happens to students after they are retained: Do they end up repeating the same program that did not work well the first time? Or like in the district under examination in Peterson’s study, were specific plans developed to support students after their retention? Does the level of support during the retained year make a difference? If so, why are those supports not put in place before the child is retained? 12  Jimerson (2001b) prepared a synthesis of three meta-analyses, Holmes and Matthews (1984), Holmes’ follow-up meta-analysis covering studies published in the 1980s (1989), and his own meta-analysis of studies published in the 1990s (Jimerson, 2001a), providing an opportunity to examine the results of 83 studies published between 1925 and 1999. A practitioner-focused discussion of the three meta-analyses may be found in Jimerson and Kaufman (2003).

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

27

Taking methodological weaknesses and concerns about instruments used for measurement into account, it is difficult to disregard more than 110  years’ worth of studies that call into question the effectiveness of retention for improving reading achievement. So, if it is doubtful that retention is an appropriate intervention for struggling readers, then what is the rationale for consistently including it as a key component of reading laws? Supporters of this type of legislation often point to concerns about high school graduation rates, so we will turn our attention to that body of evidence next. Outcome 2: High School Graduation Rates Bolstered by the release of the AECF Double Jeopardy report (Hernandez, 2012), supporters of retention often tout retention as a way to improve high school graduation rates. Compared to difficulties in measuring academic outcomes, including variability in the choice of instruments and concerns about the validity of those instruments, high school graduation rate is, on the surface, a more straightforward variable to measure. However, graduation rate addresses neither the types of supports, if any, that students received during their retained year, nor the incredibly diverse schooling experiences between the time they are retained and their year of graduation. Graduation rate studies are also unable to address differences in graduation requirements among states. Even with those caveats, the data on high school graduation is clear. Rather than increasing the percentage of students graduating from high school, many studies in recent decades have pointed to a troubling increase in the probability of retained students dropping out (Allensworth, 2004; Eide & Showalter, 2001; Grissom & Shepard, 1989; House, 1998; Jacob & Lefgren, 2009; Jimerson, 1999; Roderick, 1994), findings consistent with systematic reviews of 17 studies published between 1977 and 1999 by Jimerson et al. (2002) and 91 studies from 1980 through 2008 by Xia and Kirby (2009). In a retrospective longitudinal analysis of retention, and one that casts serious doubt on the success of the “Florida Formula,” Jasper (2016) looked at a cohort of 466 students who were the first to be retained under Florida’s reading law in 2002–2003 and compared them to 220 students who also received the lowest score on the end-of-year exam in third grade, but who were not retained. Following the students through high school, the promoted group was 14.7% more likely to graduate with a standard

28 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

diploma than the retained group (Jasper, 2016). This finding is especially worrisome because Florida-style reading laws were so popular in the period between 2008 and 2013, before the type of long-term data reported in this study was known. Because of cost and complexity, most analyses of graduation rates are retrospective, examining current graduates and looking backward into their schooling history, rather than following students forward through their education. This rarity is what makes a relatively recent study by Hughes et al. (2018) so important. The researchers conducted a 14-year prospective study that included 256 retained students and 478 promoted students in Texas who entered Grade 1  in the fall of 2001 and 2002. Similar to Jasper’s longitudinal work, and the findings of many studies reported in the Xia and Kirby literature review, Hughes et al. found a statistically significant increase in the likelihood of retained students dropping out. They also found that, although boys are more likely to be retained, African American and Hispanic girls who were retained had the greatest increase in risk for not completing high school. Because their study was large scale and involved rigorous statistics, they were able to establish a causal effect between retention and an increased probability of dropping out (Hughes et al., 2018). Retention is not an effective method for improving school completion rates. As Grissom and Shepard (1989) concluded from their own review of the literature, although interpreting quasi-experimental data requires caveats, the accumulated evidence contradicts the claim that retention will prevent students from dropping out and may, in fact, have the opposite effect. Outcome 3: Social-Emotional Other than improving academic outcomes, the rationale for retention is often that it provides a benefit for students who are immature (Abidin et  al., 1971; Jackson, 1975). Rather than being a boon for emotional development, retention seems to do quite the opposite. As far back as 1933, 1936, and 1944, studies were indicating negative impacts of nonpromotion on student behavior and mental health: less satisfaction from work, increased discouragement, and antagonistic behaviors among retained pupils compared to those socially promoted (as cited by Abidin et al., 1971).

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

29

Alongside academic measures, like reading scores, researchers frequently report social-emotional outcomes. However, I will not spend time on those studies, as I question how complex and changeable emotions like discouragement and satisfaction with school can truly be measured, especially among young children. So, rather than a discussion of numbers, I turn to a compelling program of research started by Yamamoto and Byrnes. The voices of the students, those whose lives are directly affected by retention, are disconcertingly absent from the literature. Yamamoto and Byrnes’ work from the 1980s, including replication and follow-up studies conducted by subsequent scholars, provides essential information about perceptions of retention from children themselves. When surveyed, students in Grade 3 rated retention as a highly stressful event, placing it 3rd out of 20 items on a Child Stress Scale, just below losing a parent and going blind (Yamamoto & Byrnes, 1987). Two decades later, Anderson et al. (2005) conducted a replication study, with students in Grade 3 rating retention as the fifth most stressful event, and middle schoolers in Grade 6 reporting that retention was the most stressful event they could imagine—even more stressful than losing a parent. A related study by Berliner and Casanova (1986) asked similar questions of post-high school students, to see if perspectives on retention change with age. When ranking 15 life experiences, 95% of young people indicated that being retained in elementary school was equally traumatic to losing a parent or going blind. In the only study I could find where researchers spoke directly with retained students about their experiences, Byrnes and Yamamoto (1985) interviewed 71 elementary students who had previously been held back. The whole article is an essential read, for the rare insights that it provides, but overall, the children described retention as a negative and confusing experience, with 87% of students reporting that being retained made them feel “sad, bad, upset, or embarrassed” (p. 210). Considering that 27,713 third graders were retained in the first year of Florida’s reading law alone (Florida Department of Education, n.d.), not to mention the millions of students who have been retained nationwide before and since, all of them individuals lost in the magnitude of the numbers, it is a travesty that student voices have been so completely ignored when considering the impacts of the retention component of third-grade reading laws.

30 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Outcome 4: Economic Retention is an enormous financial expense. Even if we disregard costs such as additional testing, or hiring additional third-grade teachers, every year of retention requires that taxpayers fund one extra year of schooling for every child who is held back, an amount that can easily reach into tens of millions of dollars. This financial burden has been a point of concern for over a century. Among his other critiques, Ayres (1909) warned about the unnecessary cost of retention, a cost compounded in his era when it was common for students to be retained multiple times during their school careers. Scholars have frequently highlighted the expense of retention, including researchers who have reported positive academic outcomes for retained students (Eide & Showalter, 2001; Greene & Winters, 2007; Jasper, 2016; Jimerson et al., 2006; Lorence & Dworkin, 2006; McGillFranzen & Allington, 2006; Niklason, 1984; Schwager et al., 1992; Smith & Shepard, 1987). If retention is so expensive, then why is it such a common feature of reading laws? Schwager et al. (1992) posit that retention is convenient and politically expedient: because the costs of retention are borne by taxpayers through the general budget, the expense is essentially hidden. If the legislature was to propose a $43,500,000 literacy program, there might be an outcry about spending so much on a single intervention, and political fallout if it is not successful. But if that exact same amount is divided among all the districts in the state to pay for a 13th year of schooling, the outlay is unnoticed. More fundamentally, by laundering the expense through the education budget, no structural changes are necessary. The cost to individual school districts (and, by extension, the state) is only one side of the equation. What about the cost to individuals? We have talked about the types of intangible costs incurred by students on their academic lives and their social-emotional well-being. But what about the cost to an individual’s lifetime earnings? What about the macroeconomic implications of removing so many workers from the system? Answers to these questions are difficult to find. As challenging as it is to conduct longitudinal studies to explore effects on high school graduation rates, it is even more complex to follow students into their lives after schooling. One key study, by Eide and Showalter in the Economics of Education Review (2001) that followed high school sophomores for a decade, found not only a positive correlation between retention and dropping out of high school, but also a statistically significant negative

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

31

correlation between retention and post-high school labor market earnings. Another key study looked at participants in the Minnesota MotherChild Interaction Project, following children from birth through their school years (Jimerson, 1999). Jimerson found that retained students were less likely to receive a diploma by age 20, less likely to be enrolled in college or any other postsecondary program, received lower work evaluations, and were paid less per hour. Importantly, individuals who were lowachieving but who had been socially promoted were comparable to the control group in their employment outcomes (Jimerson, 1999). All in all, requiring an individual to repeat a grade has individual professional repercussions, as wealth and salary grow over time, as well as macroeconomic implications. Problems With the evidence about retention so consistently mixed to negative, it seems clear that it should not be used as an intervention. It is akin to prescribing a medicine where the side effects are worse than the symptoms of the disease it is supposed to treat. That being said, third-grade reading laws continue to spread, and they continue to include retention as a key component. To find out why, we will now go further back to the very roots of retention in the United States. Despite attitudes toward third-grade reading laws being more rooted in ideology than fact, we should not give up on presenting evidence. Reading laws raise a raft of red flags, and we cannot allow resistance to facts to prevent us from speaking up and sharing those facts. Key concerns include the use of retention as an intervention, expecting uniform development, the use of standardized testing, the discriminatory application of retention policies, and retention distracting from the very necessary conversations we could otherwise conduct about supporting literacy development. The five concerns outlined in this section are the same talking points I use when speaking with state legislators about why our state’s reading law needs to be amended.  roblem 1: Retention as an Intervention P The single greatest problem with third-grade reading laws is the inclusion of retention as an intervention. Unlike some of the more nuanced policy issues discussed in this book, the overwhelming consensus on retention is clear: findings indicate that holding students back is not effective, and

32 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

likely harmful. Because retention has been used in schools long before the advent of reading laws, the field has collected more than a century of research, starting with a report by Ayres (1909). Since the mid-1970s, meta-analyses and comprehensive literature reviews synthesizing and summarizing research on retention have been published every 10–15  years (Holmes & Matthews, 1984; Huddleston, 2014; Jackson, 1975; Jimerson, 2001a). Individual studies, and the meta-analyses looking across those studies, consistently report the same finding: retention is a neutral intervention at best, and any positive effects seem to be short-lived. At worst, retention is actively harmful.13 Retention is an extremely blunt instrument for a nuanced problem.  roblem 2: Expecting Uniform Development P Another problem with third-grade reading laws stems from the conception of reading development baked into them: the belief that there is such a thing as a “third-grade reader” (Shepard & Smith, 1989; Smith & Shepard, 1987). Essentially, reading laws ignore variations in development and presuppose a single benchmark at the end of third grade that should be attained by all children. Rather than using a single number on a test to determine if a child is promoted to the next grade, it seems that the solution should be to look more closely at the child’s “reading diet”: one that includes high-quality texts consumed with frequency. Evidence for success should be development over time, not a one-size-fits-all goal. How that development is measured is another issue entirely, and one we will turn to next.  roblem 3: Use of Standardized Testing P In addition to very real concerns about retention and unrealistic expectations about how young learners develop, reading laws are also problematic due to a cluster of issues around the use and reliance on standardized test scores as the “trigger” for determining retention. Standardized tests raise concerns about validity, the use of a single data point, and inherent bias. 13  For a rare dissenting review and reexamination of the accumulated research, calling into question the ability to conclude that retention is harmful from studies with methodological weaknesses, and critiquing many of the meta-analyses cited in this chapter, see Lorence (2006). Lorence and a colleague also analyzed Texas data from 1994 through 2002 in a pair of studies that concluded that retention is a benefit to students (Lorence, 2014; Lorence & Dworkin, 2006).

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

33

(Mis)Use of Standardized Test Scores  Regarding validity, end-of-year standardized tests are typically mapped to standards. In most states, these would be the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (CCSS-ELA, National Governor’s Association, 2010). However, the CCSS-ELA for Grade 3 do not provide much detail on the component skills required to be a fluent reader who comprehends a text. Therefore, state tests informed by these standards are not very good at detecting the difficulties that any given student may be having with reading. This is not a failure of the test: it simply isn’t what they were developed to measure (Penfield, 2010).  The issue of standardized tests and their misuse is exacerbated by the fact that classroom teachers are not allowed to view the questions, as the tests themselves are proprietary. As a result, the tests are a mystery: educators are asked to place their faith in the developer about what the test is even asking. For these reasons, end-of-year standardized tests are not a valid measure of reading achievement, as it is impossible to gauge if they measure what they are purported to measure (Penfield, 2010). A Single Score as a “Trigger”  Standardized testing also raises a concern about using a single data point for determining retention. Frankly, it is ridiculous to make a determination about a young person’s readiness for the next grade based on a few dozen questions, especially since the determining score, in which a single question could place a student above or below the retention trigger, is close to random (Jacob, 2017). As Labaree (1984) eloquently summarized the concern with using testing as the determining factor for retention: “A single grade-equivalent score for a single skill from the single administration of a single test appears to be a tenuous basis for compelling a student to repeat a year of school” (p. 76).  Since the 1990s, these types of state-level exams have migrated online. Anyone who has worked with third graders for any length of time knows that their ability for sustained concentration on a single task varies, from day to day and minute to minute. Most of these tests are about two hours long: an eternity for an eight-year-old. Any given student may receive a low score simply from being bored and clicking through the answers. Clicking through raises a related concern: the reliance on computers to administer assessments. A cursory glance at the design of such tests reveals that a student may get the question wrong because of a

34 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

confusing interface.14 In such cases, the test becomes more a measure of computer skills than reading skills. A Single Style of Demonstrating Reading Ability  With the potential negative ramifications of retention, relying on a single test score to make the decision is dangerous. With such high stakes, the type of test matters. Sadly, the majority of these tests are multiple choice. This presupposes that a multiple choice test is an effective way to judge someone’s reading ability. These tests do not measure fluency or prosody, and they certainly do not look at affective measures, such as enjoyment, self-efficacy, or engagement. As such, these exams offer an anemic vision of what reading is. While it is true that some states allow for alternative assessments, or the use of portfolios, the fact of the matter is that computerized standardized testing is the cheapest and most efficient method of “assessing” large groups of students, so that is what will be used in the vast majority of schools. In some states, such as Mississippi, students may take the end-ofyear assessment up to three times, to give the child additional chances to reach a passing score to avoid retention. Imagine the fatigue at having to take the same exam three times and the additional sense of failure if the final score still leads to retention.  Inherent Bias  The final problem with standardized testing is inherent bias. Numerous scholars have pointed to the racist beginnings of standardized testing (Au, 2016, 2019; Huddleston & Rockwell, 2015). As test developers tend to be middle class and White, the test items presuppose a middle class, White upbringing (Au, 2016). Research has repeatedly shown that students of color and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds tend to score lower on standardized tests. These lower scores are often used as evidence of a problem with their schools. I would counter that the problem is that too often standardized tests reflect specific cultural and demographic knowledge that presupposes certain experiences are universal. If it is impossible to remove bias from test items, then perhaps we should not use such assessments at all.  The use of standardized testing has increased over the decades, with a dramatic uptick after the turn of the millennium due to the requirements of NCLB. Au (2016) argues that high-stakes testing is best understood as a 14  To get a better idea of sample test items, and potentially confusing interface functionality, visit the online training provided for Michigan’s end-of-year assessment. Visit https:// wbte.drcedirect.com/MI/portals/mi, click on M-STEP, then click on “Sample Item Sets.” Choose “Grade 3” and “English Language Arts.”

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

35

project of reshaping public education in the image of free-market capitalism. By forcing students to take tests that are inherently biased, those in power are able to construct the mirage of an achievement gap that plays into persistent racist ideologies. Sadly, standardized tests have been part of the school experience in the United States for so long that the general public, and students themselves, perceive the tests as objective (Huddleston, 2015). This perpetuates a narrative that success or failure is a consequence of individual achievement, masking structural racial inequality (Au, 2016).  roblem 4: Discriminatory Application of Retention Policies P Retention, as enacted, is discriminatory. Abidin and colleagues (1971) stated it with an admirable bluntness: “in short if you are black, male, from a low socio-economic family with mother working and father absent your chances of being retained in the first or second grade are greatly increased” (p. 414), and “retention is largely a de facto discriminatory policy against the poor” (p.  415). In study after study, researchers have reported that boys, students of color, and students from lower SES families, particularly when those identities are in combination, are more likely to be retained (Bali et  al. 2005; Barnett et  al., 1996; Dauber et  al., 1993; Eide & Showalter, 2001; Frey, 2005; Huddleston, 2014; Jackson, 1975; Jasper, 2016; Jimerson et al., 1997; Lorence & Dworkin, 2006; Meisels & Liaw, 1993; Xia & Kirby, 2009). In the AECF Double Jeopardy report (Hernandez, 2012), poverty is in the subtitle, How Third-Grade Reading Skills and Poverty Influence High School Graduation, but it has never been properly recognized as a key predictor of the students who actually end up being held back. In a study of 100 California districts, Schwager et al. (1992) found that larger districts retained more students on average than smaller districts and that, among those larger districts, those with a lower average SES retained proportionally more students than districts with higher average SES. Looking at districts in Texas, Bali et al. (2005) found that the effect of students’ academic performance was a weaker predictor of which students would be retained than the effects of students’ family income and minority status. Evaluating the effectiveness of two different state-mandated “core” reading programs in Florida, McGill-Franzen et  al. (2006) found an inverse relationship between poverty and achievement, regardless of the enacted program. I argue that students from families and districts with lower SES do indeed face double jeopardy: the challenge of attending schools that are already

36 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

under-resourced, then facing retention at the end of third-grade when their test scores do not compare favorably with their peers in wealthier, Whiter areas. Discrimination related to retention is more pronounced at the intersection of SES and race/ethnicity. As House pointed out in 1998, describing retention policies in New York City and Chicago, White Americans will support programs harmful to people of color that they would never tolerate for their own children. In his analysis, mass retention programs are aimed at minoritized populations. Surveying 15 Chicago suburbs, he found that all of them retained fewer than 1% of their students. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was inner-city school districts with large numbers of students of color that instituted retention policies. In the same year that House was writing about the retention policies of large urban school districts, mandatory retention policies were becoming a statewide trend, but the discriminatory effects remain. Statewide retention averages disguise disproportionate impacts on communities of color. For instance, Ohio has had mandatory retention since 2012. In 2018–2019, the last year with assessment data unimpacted by the pandemic, Ohio reported that 5% of their third graders were retained statewide. However, looking at city-level data, the retention rates were 18.5% in Dayton, 16.1% in Cleveland, and 14.6% in Columbus, all cities with large populations of students of color.  roblem 5: Retention Is a Distraction P Most distressingly, the focus on retention creates a great deal of noise, which distracts from very necessary conversations we should be having about reading instruction. First, we should be talking about how the focus on reading is itself outdated: we need to be speaking about literacy—not only reading, but also writing, speaking, listening, drawing, and viewing (National Governors Association, 2010). The field of reading research long ago expanded to encompass literacy as the multimodal ways in which we communicate with one another. Second, the retention component of these laws detracts from the laudable supports that are included, like reading coaches, summer school, and professional development, that are evidence based and likely to make a real difference regarding literacy outcomes. Finally, data on the effectiveness of reading laws is confounded by the simultaneous introduction of multiple reforms and the resulting impossibility of looking at each intervention in isolation (Holmes, 1989). For instance, Jeb Bush and his allies were able to promote their “Florida

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

37

miracle” by trumpeting assessment score gains attributed to Florida’s reading law. However, Florida instituted many educational reforms, some of them prior to the passage of the third-grade reading law, including reduced class sizes, enhanced early education, and a statewide reading program, along with retention (Mathis, 2011). What if the score gains were due to those other reforms, and not retention? Common sense suggests that may be the case, but a program of research would be hard-pressed to establish a causal relationship separating the impacts of retention from the influence of the other reforms on test score gains in the absence of a control group.

Evolution of Policy Streams over Time Third-grade reading laws are the result of the confluence of three distinct issues: retention in grade, movements for increased school accountability, and a focus on third grade as a predictor of future academic performance. We will discuss each of these and watch as they flow together to produce the current situation wherein reading laws exist in more than half of the country. Retention in Grade Retention in grade in the United States has a history that long predates reading laws (Frey, 2005). Prior to the mid-1800s, retention was not necessary. Public education, especially beyond the first few years of elementary school, was not available to the majority of children. For those that did attend school, the most common context was a multi-age one-room schoolhouse. Students proceeded through material at their own pace (Labaree, 1984). Age-graded schooling became more common in the United States with the movement for universal public education advocated by Horace Mann and others in the 1840s (Katznelson & Weir, 1985). With increasing numbers of students in the schools, education began to transform from a bespoke experience to a “batch processing” model, akin to similar changes in manufacturing during the Industrial Revolution, whereby large numbers of children could be pushed through the system (Labaree, 1984). Age was convenient for such sorting. However, from the start of graded education, variations among individuals raised questions about whether age was the best metric for grouping children. This caused an ongoing

38 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

debate between promotion based on merit and treating all students the same for the sake of organizational efficiency (Labaree, 1984). With graded education established, and with more students attending school, retention was rampant during latter part of the nineteenth century (Ayres, 1909). Retention was essentially unregulated, as it was not a law or even a formal policy: it was part of school culture, immutable and assumed, like assigning one teacher per classroom, or having students sit in rows. Retention was a local decision, left up to districts and individual schools. In the absence of a national system, the exact numbers have always been difficult to track, but looking at students who were overage for their grade provided a proxy. By the turn of the last century, although there were variations from state to state, and even district to district, percentages of overage pupils ranged from 7.5% in Medford, Massachusetts, all the way up to 75.8% of children in Memphis, Tennessee (Ayres, 1909). It was not uncommon for children to repeat the same grade multiple times, or to be retained more than once in different grades. By 1909, the problem was so severe that Ayres prepared his seminal book-length report. Retention rates began to decline around 1918 (Abidin et al., 1971), reaching a low point in the early 1970s (Shepard & Smith, 1989). Just when it seemed like retention would be banished from schools, consigned to the past like corporal punishment as a practice that caused lasting harm, retention came roaring back and shows no sign of abating. What changed? Accountability Measures As I researched the roots of third-grade reading laws for this chapter, I discovered something unexpected. Inventories of current reading laws are typically presented as a map15 or as an alphabetical list.16 These representations are useful, but they do not show how these laws spread. As I looked into the history of each state to create a timeline of implementation (see Table 2.1), I found that their statutes and codes were akin to a palimpsest. Before the advent of readily available paper, books and scrolls were written on parchment, made of animal skin. It was expensive and difficult to 15  National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ third-grade-reading-legislation.aspx; Education Commission of the States (2020). https:// www.ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/Building_a_Better_K-3_Literacy_System.pdf 16  Education Commission of the States (2020). https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/ state-k-3-policies-19

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

39

prepare, so parchment was often washed and reused. Over years, different texts would layer upon one another. Archaeologists use modern techniques to examine the earlier texts, revealing hidden histories. Reading laws are like those palimpsests. As I researched each state’s law, I uncovered earlier and earlier versions. Sometimes, the changes were minor: amendments that added a “good cause” exemption or updating the standardized test to be used as the trigger for retention. Other times, it was a more drastic change, like a shift from locally determined retention policies to a statewide measure or narrowing retention policies in multiple grades to a focus on third grade.17 Scraping away the layers revealed a radically different story than the Florida narrative. What became clear is that third-grade reading laws, as we currently understand them, are the result of distinct waves stretching back to the 1970s. The first two waves, the minimum-competency movement and the push for standards-based reforms, gradually transformed retention from an unregulated school practice to a district-determined policy to a statewide mandate.  970s–1980s: Minimum-Competency Movement 1 Peering into the past, the oldest extant reading law in the United States is in a place that never comes up in current conversations about such legislation: Maryland (see Fig. 2.2). In some ways, this is because Maryland was swept up in the first wave of accountability measures but was not affected by subsequent waves. Because of this, Maryland’s reading law provides a direct snapshot of politician’s concerns at the time. After a low ebb in the early 1970s, policies such as Maryland’s were on the rise. The media was reporting low scores on exams like the SAT, causing an uproar that schools were too lax and that the United States was falling behind other countries in academic achievement (Babones, 2015). As a result, a chorus of politicians began to demand that minimum competency, a certain level of achievement, be established in order for a student to progress to the next grade (Holmes & Matthews, 1984). Although they rarely rose to the level of state law in this era, by 1979, about 38 states had minimum-competency testing programs (Niklason, 1984). The immediate 17  The dates listed in Table 2.1 reflect the enactment of the most recent substantial change to state law (e.g.., a shift from a broad law that provided for local measures to a third-grade law with mandatory retention based on a state-determined trigger). Smaller amendments (e.g., the addition of an exemption) are not reflected. I made this decision to give a clearer picture of when the “current form” of the law was established.

40 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Fig. 2.2  Maryland’s reading law [Md. Code Ann., Art. 77 § 98D (1976)]

result of these new policies was a spike in retentions: in 1960, less than 1% of students were retained nationwide, but by 1982, it was one-third (Niklason, 1984). The early epicenter of this movement was New  York City and their Promotional Gates Program, launched in the spring of 1981 (Labaree, 1984). The idea was to erect “promotional gates” at the ends of Grades 4 and 8: students had to reach a certain score on the reading section of the commercially available California Achievement Test in order to progress to the next grade. District administrators in New York City disregarded that elementary classes at the time averaged 43 students, 80% of whom were students of color, and retained 25,000 students in the initial year of implementation, one-fifth of students in the assessed grades (House,

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

41

1998). Because the Promotional Gates Program had no provisions for social promotion, some students were forced to repeat the same grade two or three times (House, 1998). The panic over “failing” schools was exacerbated in 1983 with the publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (U.S.  National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).18 The 36-page report painted a grim picture of decline from 1963 to 1980. One of the 38 recommendations in the report was that “standardized tests of achievement (not to be confused with aptitude tests) should be administered at major transition points from one level of schooling to another” (p.  28). Although the small 18-person commission included only 12 administrators, a businessperson, a chemist, a physicist, a politician, a conservative activist, and only one teacher—no students, union representatives, educational researchers, or experts in child development (Babones, 2015)—this report served as a blueprint for educational reforms for nearly 20 years, until No Child Left Behind came along with even more stringent reforms.  990s–2000s: Standards-Based Reforms 1 Although third-grade reading laws are now associated with the Republican Party, in the 1990s, trying to end the “destructive, deceptive practice of social promotion” was a Democratic policy priority (Glidden, 1998, p. 8). In 1994, President Clinton signed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Pub. L.  No. 103-227 § 108, Stat. 130, 1994), which was focused on standards-based reform. Starting in 1995, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation’s largest teachers’ union, began issuing an annual Making Standards Matter report, tracking the progress of setting clear, measurable standards for all grade levels (Glidden, 1998). While standards are admirable, the AFT wraps these up with a strange “tough love” stance on the necessity of doing away with social promotion: “Promoting students who haven’t mastered the material sends students a terrible message: They can get by without working hard or learning very

18  The name of Jeb Bush’s organization, The Foundation for Excellence in Education, is a callback to this Reagan-era government commission.

42 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

much. This doesn’t hold true in the real world, and most youngsters find out the hard way” (Glidden, 1998, p. 18).19 Although New  York City had quietly abandoned their Promotional Gates Program in 1991 (House, 1998),20 Chicago Public Schools was inspired and enacted their own version of promotional gates in 1996 (Roderick & Nagaoka, 2005), administering high-stakes tests in Grades 3, 6, and 8. Similar to New  York City, the trigger score for retention was “more than one year behind” as determined by the norm-referenced Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. As a result, Chicago began retaining 7000–10,000 students per year in the three assessed grades, about one-fifth of students in each grade. An evaluation of the program, like so many studies before, found no evidence that retention led to greater achievement growth for third graders two years after their retained year (House, 1998). Also in 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 into law. Because the District of Columbia is semi-autonomous, their local government functions, including the administration of their school district, are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress and the President. The passage of this law created “promotion gates” (the same language as New York City), and as of 2021, the law is still on the books. President Clinton was an enthusiastic member of the “end social promotion” camp, mentioning it in his State of the Union addresses in 1997, 1998, and 1999. In 1998, he specifically mentioned Chicago: We must also demand greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who hasn’t mastered the work, we don’t do that child any favors. It is time to end social promotion in America’s schools. Last year, in Chicago, they made that decision—not to hold our children back but to lift them up. Chicago stopped social promotion and started mandatory summer school to help students who are behind to catch up. I propose to help 19  Twenty years after their first Making Standards Matter report, the AFT-affiliated Albert Shanker Institute issued a policy brief titled “The Evidence on the ‘Florida Formula’ for Education Reform” (Di Carlo, 2015). Although not as starkly anti-social promotion as the AFT materials issued in the 1990s, the 2015 policy brief was much more supportive of testbased promotion policies than the majority of contemporaneous research. 20  Disturbingly, despite the failure of Promotional Gates, strict retention policies were reinstated in New York City under the Bloomberg Administration in 2004. Third-grade students were required to score at least a two on the citywide English Language Arts and math tests in order to avoid retention. This policy remained in place until 2014, when the district finally issued guidance to rely on multiple measures for promotion decisions (Grant, 2014).

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

43

other communities follow Chicago’s lead. Let’s say to them: Stop promoting children who don’t learn, and we will give you the tools to make sure they do. (Clinton, 1998)

After mentioning Chicago’s “success” story a second time in his State of the Union speech in 1999, President Clinton followed up by instructing the U.S.  Department of Education to prepare the guide Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion: A Guide for Educators and State and Local Leaders (1999). His name was not on the cover, but his endorsement letter was included within, lending the guide his full authority as President. The report does acknowledge the harm of retention and its disproportionate impacts on minoritized students. The guide mostly discusses interventions, but in the end, it still includes retention as the consequence for failing to achieve standards. Around this time, scholars like Ernest House, who had audited the New York City’s Promotional Gates Program, at events like the Conference on Rethinking Retention to Help All Students Succeed (1998), were raising alarms about the spread of retention policies. Shane Jimerson, a psychologist whose work is rooted in the effects of trauma, along with his colleagues, began developing a substantial body of work around retention (Jimerson et al., 1997; Jimerson & Ferguson, 2007; Silberglitt, Appleton, Burns, & Jimerson, 2006a; Silberglitt, Jimerson, Burns, & Appleton, 2006b). The work of Jimerson and colleagues was part of a counter-movement by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) to consider alternatives to retention (1998). Although their position policy document has been revised many times over the subsequent decades, from the beginning, NASP has encouraged strategies and interventions including increasing parental involvement, using multi-age groupings, developing early reading programs, differentiating instruction, and implementing tutoring programs. Despite the best efforts of House, Jimerson, and others, a second wave of retention laws passed in Illinois, Delaware, and California in 1996 and 1998. Like many areas of the country, California already had local policies regarding accountability. However, these were locally determined and ranged from vaguely defined domains such as “maturity” and “academic ability” through specific scores on specific tests (Schwager et  al. 1992). Politicians felt that the current policies lacked “teeth,” so retention was added as a consequence for not meeting selected benchmarks. At the time, this was not controversial: the law was passed unanimously by a majority

44 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Democrat legislature and signed by a Republican governor. Steeped in the accountability movement that was sweeping the nation in the 1990s, the California law applied to all grade levels and required districts to define grade-level standards for language arts, reading, and math that students would need to meet in order to be promoted to the next grade. In a preview of things to come, for Grades 2 and 3, the promotional standards were required only for reading (Jimerson, 2001b). At the turn of the millennium, George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton as President. The two men are often thought of as being very different, but regarding education reform, they had more commonalities than differences. Clinton’s Goals 2000 initiative and his remarks in his State of the Union speeches are direct precursors to No Child Left Behind. As we discussed earlier, George W. had already been exploring increased standardsbased accountability as Governor of Texas, and he used the strict accountability system from Texas as the model for NCLB (Bali et  al., 2005). Tying federal funding to specific benchmarks set the stage for third-grade reading laws in their current form. Third Grade as a “Line in the Sand” So, why third grade? At the very beginning of the George W. Bush presidency, three states passed reading laws that specified mandatory retention. The versions passed in Georgia and Missouri looked similar to the promotional gates legislation that had passed in other states in the late 1990s. The third state to pass a reading law, in the early days of NCLB, was Florida. It is at this point, during the presidency of George W. Bush and the Florida governorship of Jeb Bush, that our narrative loops back to connect with the third-grade reading law story I shared at the beginning of this chapter. But now we have additional context. Motivated by a fear of failing schools and reduced international competitiveness, districts and schools in the 1970s–1980s had passed policies establishing minimum competencies. The push to end social promotion was fueled in the 1990s by the largest teachers’ union and a Democratic president. By the year 2000, at least six states and the District of Columbia had some version of a law that allowed for retention for struggling third-grade readers. Unlike California, which included retention at every grade, and other states that had promotional gates at select grades considered to be major transition points, Florida zoomed in on the reading achievement of third

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

45

graders. In some ways, focusing on one grade as a promotional gate was logistically easier and financially cheaper. In other ways, the selection of third grade was the result of the intentional efforts of Jeb Bush, while still governor, and with ExcelinEd after, to replicate the choices made in Florida. As I dug deeper, I found that more and more states that are considered to have “Florida-style” third-grade reading laws, like Colorado and Ohio, already had reading laws in place, passed either during the minimum-competency era or the standards-based era, but overwrote their previous laws with the Florida template to emphasize third grade, mandatory retention, and standardized testing as the trigger. Third grade is the year of choice for other reasons. By the late 1980s, students were being held back in younger grades because of a widespread belief in “less harm” by retaining students earlier in their school careers (Shepard & Smith, 1989), a belief already called into question by the work of Yamamoto and Byrnes (1987). More suspiciously, third-grade is a convenient grade to flunk students, because the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the “nation’s report card,” is administered to students in Grade 4. High-stakes testing increases rates of flunking, which then helps to inflate test scores. How? In the initial year of a retention law, a large percentage of lower-achieving students are blocked from taking the Grade 4 exam, as they are stuck repeating Grade 3. So, the average score on the Grade 4 exam receives an immediate boost (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 2006). The second year after the law takes effect also receives a boost, in two ways. Again, a percentage of low-scoring students are retained in Grade 3, repeating the effect of removing low scores from the state average. But now, the retainees from the previous year, who are now in Grade 4, will also look like they improved: between maturation, extra exposure to the grade-level standards, and starting with a low benchmark, if the retained students learned anything during their repeated year, their test scores should improve (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 2006). This repression and amplification effect on scores is part of the reason why Florida was able to point to such substantial “growth” during the first few years of their reading law. Of course, third grade is important, but so are all of the years of schooling. In her influential AECF report, Fiester (2010) declared third grade as the gate between “learning to read and reading to learn.” I offer that the “line in the sand” at the end of third grade does not exist. Without a national curriculum, what happens in third grade in Arkansas is not the

46 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

same as what happens in Massachusetts. We do not have a single thirdgrade experience in this country. I conclude this section with a pair of quick thought experiments. First, take out a piece of paper. List everything that you remember from when you were in third grade. I predict that it is a fairly short list. Now, look over the items and identify which memories are about specific content or skills. I predict it is an even shorter list. I am not suggesting that you didn’t learn anything in third grade, but I am suggesting that perhaps we place too much stock in a grade when we are likely to forget most of what we learned. We accrue our knowledge over time. That brings me to the second thought experiment. Identify the moment you “learned to read.” It is tough, isn’t it? Unlike riding a bike, when there was a clear moment you could not, and then you could, reading is not a dichotomous variable. If it was, it would be easier to test! Of course, some reading skills are clear cut: being able to name the letters of the alphabet or matching those letters to their sounds. But so much of the rest of reading is a continuously developing skill. Third-grade reading laws would have you think that a “proficient” reader is now able to read, like a switch that has been turned on. But that same reader might later struggle with a high school chemistry textbook, or a legal briefing presented in a graduate school law class. Reading skills develop over the lifespan.

Looking to the Future In their seminal book about retention, Shepard and Smith (1989) concluded that the increasing rates of retention in the 1980s were unlikely to result in increased academic achievement or, its corollary, economic benefits. Not only were they correct, but I am sure they would be dismayed by the dozens of third-grade reading laws that were passed after the publication of their book. One of the dark secrets about retention is that politicians’ concerns about education have little to do with the goals or personal fulfillment of individuals, but more to do with the economic viability of the nation. In this factory view, struggling students are like defective products, and by tweaking the line, the product can be improved. As dehumanizing as this view is, an alternative is darker: that thirdgrade reading laws are not meant to improve any outcomes but are designed to avoid doing anything. Schwager et  al. (1992) suggest how retention functions as a cover for avoiding more difficult problems: “By controlling the flow of low-achieving students through a system of mass

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

47

compulsory education, retention practices give the appearance of accountability and enforcement of standards without intervening in the underlying problem, that of low student achievement” (p.  435). Ellwein and Glass (1989) found something similar when looking at retention practices in a single district. They found a heavy investment in standards at the outset, which makes for good public relations and good politics, but an intentional avoidance of examining the consequences of those policies. As Hernandez (2012) mentioned in his AECF report, poverty is a contributor to his findings about lowered high school graduation rates. But poverty is a complex issue to address, and to solve it would take tremendous investments that most politicians are unwilling to make. A third, even darker, alternative exists. Rather than policies of improvement that are misguided, or policies of avoidance, it is very possible that third-grade reading laws are designed to cause intentional harm. From our earlier discussion about disproportionate impacts on minoritized children, the racial implications of retention implicate third-grade reading laws as a component of the “school-to-prison nexus” (e.g., Krueger, 2010), a critical stance that views the tactics used by schools and prisons as identical. Similar to higher rates of discipline and expulsion, retention is a practice that implicates schooling as a source not of education, but of punishment, for Black and Brown children, particularly Black and Brown males. Rather than being supported academically and emotionally, they are singled out for harm. It is not their low reading scores in third grade, but their mistreatment within the school system that leads to higher rates of incarceration (Mallett, 2016). In this way, the retention component of reading laws contributes to White supremacy by harming the college and career prospects of students of color, reducing their ability to produce and accrue wealth, damaging self-esteem and well-being, and exerting power over children of color, their families, and their communities. Disruption Is Possible All three of these alternatives are bleak. What can we do as we look to the future and find a way forward? One path is to advocate for evidence-based reforms. Starting with Ayres (1909), many scholars have presented rational and actionable suggestions for addressing the issues that result in retention, everything from policy suggestions (House, 1998) to programmatic changes (Jimerson & Renshaw, 2012; Labaree, 1984) to empirically supported prevention and intervention strategies (Jimerson et al., 2006)

48 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

to rethinking accountability systems (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 2006). Rather than restate what other have said, I will take a different approach: suggest what citizens can do to disrupt the push for retention. If politicians are concerned about the reading achievement of third graders, press them to intervene younger. Should we not provide universal preK to prevent reading difficulties before they arise? Should we not provide increased professional support to kindergarten and first-grade teachers to ensure early difficulties are addressed before disadvantages can accumulate? More radically, we can begin to advocate for ungraded classrooms, where all students proceed according to systems of continuous progress (Dobbs & Neville, 1967). Both education and politics are prone to pendulum swings, and these predictable changes in direction over time can also give us hope. As an example, we can look to the unlikely cases of Iowa and Arkansas, two deeply conservative states, both early adherents to mandatory retention, who subsequently adjusted their policies. The Iowa legislature implemented a reading law in 2012 (Iowa Code Ann. § 279.68), as part of the group of states influenced by the Florida template. Like many states, the retention component of the law was scheduled to be implemented a few years after passage. As the time to make retention decisions drew closer, politicians grew increasingly worried about the expense. All mention of retention was removed in 2017, before a single child was held back. The law remains on the books, but the remaining components are evidence-based supports. Arkansas also repealed their retention law (Ark. Code Ann. § 6-15-2009) in 2017. Rather than loudly announcing the repeal of statewide retention, the change was quietly tucked into a larger package of amendments that passed with little fanfare. Unlike in Iowa, where the cost of retention was reported and debated in the media, the retention provision in Arkansas simply disappeared. The case of Texas is even more dramatic. In 1984, they were one of the first to implement a statewide promotional gate law, a law that only became more strict with an anti-social promotion bill that Governor George W. Bush signed into law on June 8, 1999 (Valencia & Villarreal, 2005). However, the law raised red flags from the very start. When Texas fieldtested their state-designed assessment in the fall of 2002, the failure rates for African American children were 25%, 19% for Hispanic students, and 7% for White students. The passing rate was so alarming that the Department of Education readjusted the cutscore (Valencia & Villarreal,

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

49

2005). When the revised test was administered in the spring of 2003, even with the adjusted cutscore, the overall failure rate of 11% disguised racial disparities: the failure rate was 4% for White students, but 15% for Hispanic students and 18% for African American students (Valencia & Villarreal, 2005). In the years since, Texas has tried at least three different versions of their state test, each with distribution, validity, and disparity issues. Each time, legislators have been forced to disregard the test results. As of 2021, they have suspended the stakes attached to their testing entirely. If Texas can pause mandatory retention, it is possible anywhere. These three cases provide a model for other states to follow and show that it is possible to amend mandatory retention laws. But how do we prevent the pendulum from swinging back? One solution is monitoring the situation and intervening early. These policies pass because of the cynical, but not incorrect, assumption that too few everyday citizens pay attention to state politics. So, that means paying attention. It might even mean showing up at a committee meeting wearing an ugly green shirt. We need more literacy scholars to be active in the policy space. A review of the references for this chapter will reveal psychologists, sociologists, lots of policy researchers, and even economists, but the number of literacy researchers is smaller than expected. Literacy scholars need to make their voices heard, not only in the policy arena, but also in popular and social media. Since prevention is the best cure, literacy scholars can be proactive in getting their work out in the public sphere, helping to shape public opinion. Breaking the cycle of politically expedient laws divorced from the needs of students requires making sure that the voices of the people are heard. This is a two-pronged effort and perhaps an unexpected set of conclusions in a volume dedicated to literacy. We must protect voting rights, and we must interrupt the cycles of gerrymandering that have increasingly polarized our electorate. Protecting voting rights is clear: our democracy functions properly only when all members participate. Removing the voices of huge swaths of the population by making it more difficult to vote allows policies that hurt those groups flourish. Representation matters (Schwager et al., 1992). Voting is a right, not a privilege, even if a disturbingly high number of U.S. citizens disagree (Gomez & Doherty, 2021). Voting rights focuses on individual voices. But looking at the system as a whole, in the majority of states, district lines are drawn by the state legislature itself, so those in power are able to pick their own voters. When candidates are in a safe district, they compete with members of their own party. This leads to extremism. When these more extreme candidates take

50 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

office, they follow the trends of the party, not the will of the voters. The biggest literacy win in Michigan in the last decade wasn’t about literacy directly. It was the successful ballot initiative to institute an Independent Redistricting Commission. By making more districts competitive, candidates will be forced to respond and balance the needs of various constituencies. A bill is pending in Congress to make redistricting commissions the law of the land. If you want to put your energy somewhere, that would be the place. With a legislature that more accurately reflects the population, this will short-circuit the feedback loops that have resulted in so many poor policy decisions and may be the key to stopping the use of retention once and for all.

Articles and Artifacts for Further Reading 1909: Laggards in Our Schools by Leonard P. Ayres *Content Advisory: This book was a product of its time and includes attitudes and terminology that would be considered offensive or derogatory in modern usage. Over a century ago, Ayres published the very first comprehensive study on retention in grade. Much of what he found over a century ago still holds true. Because this book was funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, which is still extant, the entire book can be downloaded for free from: https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Ayres_Laggards_0.pdf 1975 • 1984 • 2001a • 2014: Retention Meta-Analyses and Literature Reviews Since the mid-1970s, a meta-analysis or a literature review on retention has been published every 10–15  years or so. Through the decades, the findings have been consistent: retention is a neutral intervention at best, and harmful at worst. 2010 • 2012: Early Warning & Double Jeopardy Annie E.  Casey Foundation Reports These pair of reports offer a cautionary tale about how research can take on a life of its own after it is released to the world. The Annie E. Casey Foundation does good work, and these reports were released with the best of intentions. However, they turbocharged the reading law movement. It is critical to note that neither report suggests retention as an intervention.

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

51

2016: Annual Report from the Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd) Founded by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in 2008, the 2016 Annual Report from ExcelinEd is proof that the spread of third-grade reading laws is not random or coincidental. Although they are a nonprofit, ExcelinEd employs paid lobbyists who make presentations to state legislators. 2019: Third Grade Reading Laws: Implementation and Impact CCSSO & CEELO Report Two decades after the passage of the first reading retention law in the United States, and 110  years after the publication of Ayres’ book, this relatively recent report provides a state-by-state overview of reading laws, case studies of selected states, as well as a broad look at impacts.

Discussion Questions 1. If decades of research indicate that it is not an effective intervention, why is retention in grade still a component of most third-grade reading laws? 2. Does third grade seem like the appropriate age to focus literacy legislation? Why or why not? 3. If not reading laws, then what? What are other ways that states can address concerns about improving literacy achievement? 4. What would happen if standardized testing was abolished? 5. The United States is a rare example of a country without a national curriculum or strong federal control over education. What would be potential impacts on literacy instruction if the United States removed local control and implemented a national literacy curriculum? 6. Consider the following scenario and resources: Like many states, Alaska has long permitted retention in grade. As this chapter was under preparation, their State Legislature began conducting hearings on adopting a Florida-style third-grade reading law with mandatory retention. Take a close look at the March 31, 2021, Senate Education Committee meeting by watching the video, listening to the audio, and/or reading the minutes at https:// tinyurl.com/AlaskaSB111

52 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

(a) Overall, how does taking a close look into this meeting make you feel? (b) Witnesses were “invitation only.” Who was invited to speak, and what arguments did they make? How do the arguments connect to the information in this chapter? (c) How do the witnesses present previous research findings? (d) How do you rate the various witnesses? Are they convincing? Are they truthful? (e) What would you say if you were asked to present testimony at this meeting?

Additional Suggestions for Further Reading and Viewing Flunking Grades: Research and Policies on Retention (1989): Lorrie A Shepard & Mary Lee Smith (Editors) Three decades later, this edited volume is as relevant now as it was when it was first published. “Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation” (2011): Jeb Bush + Review of Presentation by the National Education Policy Center: William J. Mathis Available from https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-floridaformula In the early 2010s, Jeb Bush went on the road to push the policy priorities of his Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd). NEPC, which usually provides commentary on scholarly articles, took the extraordinary step of reviewing a PowerPoint presentation. This pair of documents provides a snapshot into the pitch for reading laws and a step-by-step rebuttal. Michigan House of Representatives Session Debating HB 4822 (2015) https://www.house.mi.gov/VideoArchivePlayer?video=Session-101515. mp4 (starts @ 2:44:09) For a peek behind the legislative curtain, this footage from the Michigan Legislature captures the back and forth between Republicans and Democrats as they debated the bill that eventually became the Read by Grade 3 law.

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

53

Right to Read Documentary Film (2021): Nicole Zaremba (Producer/Director) https://video.wkar.org/video/right-to-read-ffupjc/ This documentary film, produced by a Michigan PBS station, provides a summary of the third-grade reading law in the state, pandemic-related developments, and interviews with parents.

References Abidin, R. R., Jr., Golladay, W. M., & Howerton, A. L. (1971). Elementary school retention: An unjustifiable, discriminatory and noxious educational policy. Journal of School Psychology, 9(4), 410–417. Ahearn, E. M., Lange, C. M., Rhim, L. M., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2001). Project SEARCH (Special education as requirements in charter schools): Final report of a research study. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from http://nasdse.org/docs/ProjectSearch.pdf Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1994). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades. Cambridge University Press. Allensworth, E. (2004). Ending social promotion in Chicago: The effects of ending social promotion in the eighth grade on dropout rates. Consortium on Chicago School Research. Anderson, G. E., Jimerson, S. R., & Whipple, A. D. (2005). Students’ ratings of stressful experiences at home and school: Loss of a parent and grade retention as superlative stressors. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 21(1), 1–20. Au, W. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62. Au, W. (2019). Racial justice is not a choice: White supremacy, high-stakes testing, and the punishment of Black and Brown children. Rethinking Schools, 33(4). Retrieved from https://www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/racial-justiceis-not-a-choice Ayres, L. P. (1909). Laggards in our schools. Russell Sage Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.russellsage.org/sites/default/files/Ayres_Laggards_0.pdf Babones, S. (2015, May 9). Education “reform’s” big lie: The real reason the right has declared war on our public schools. Salon. Retrieved from https://www. salon.com/2015/05/09/education_reforms_big_lie_the_real_reason_the_ right_has_declared_war_on_our_public_schools/ Bali, V. A., Anagnostopoulos, D., & Roberts, R. (2005). Toward a political explanation of grade retention. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 133–155.

54 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Balkcom, K. (2014). Bringing sunshine to third-grade readers: How Florida’s third-grade retention policy has worked and is a good model for other states considering reading laws. Journal of Law & Education, 43(3), 443–454. Barnett, K. P., Clarizio, H. F., & Payette, K. A. (1996). Grade retention among students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 33(4), 285–293. Bergman, P., & McFarlin Jr., I. (2020). Education for all? A nationwide audit study of school choice. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/~psb2101/BergmanMcFarlin_school_choice.pdf Berliner, D., & Casanova, U. (1986). Do failing students benefit from being retained? Instructor, 95(8), 14–16. Brown, B. (1998, August 4). Low-performing schools list not meant to shame them into improving. South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved from https:// www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1998-08-04-9808030199-story.html Brownstein, R. (2021, June 3). Watch what’s happening in red states. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/06/ republican-state-legislatures-changes/619086/ Byrnes, D. A., & Yamamoto, K. (1985). Academic retention of elementary pupils: An inside look. Education, 106(2), 208–214. Caughey, D., Tausonovitch, C., & Warshaw, C. (2017). Partisan gerrymandering and the political process: Effects on roll-call voting and state policies. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 16(4), 453–469. Retrieved from https://www-liebertpub-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/full/10.1089/ elj.2017.0452 Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. McGraw-Hill. Clinton, W. (1997, February 4). State of the union address. Retrieved from https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/details/WCPD-1997-02-10/WCPD-199702-10-Pg136 Clinton, W. (1998, February 2). State of the union address. Retrieved from https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/details/WCPD-1998-02-02/WCPD-1998-0202-Pg129-2 Clinton, W. (1999, January 25). State of the union address. Retrieved from https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/details/WCPD-1999-01-25/WCPD-1999-0125-Pg78-2 Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–379. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2019). Third grade reading laws: Implementation and impact. Retrieved from https://ccsso.org/resourcelibrary/third-grade-reading-laws-implementation-and-impact Dauber, S.  L., Alexander, K.  L., & Entwisle, D.  R. (1993). Characteristics of retainees and early precursors of retention in grade: Who is held back? MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 39(3), 326–343.

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

55

Di Carlo, M. (2015). Policy brief: The evidence on the “Florida Formula” for education reform. Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/evidence-florida-formula-education-reform Dobbs, V., & Neville, D. (1967). The effect of non-promotion on the achievement of groups matched from retained first graders and promoted second graders. Journal of Educational Research, 60(10), 472–475. Duke, N. K., Moje, E. B., & Palincsar, A. S. (2014, February 26). Three IRA literacy research panel members comment on Michigan House Bill 5111 [Blog post]. International Literacy Association. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog%2Fliteracy-now%2F2014%2F02%2F26%2Fthreeira-literacy-research-panel-members-comment-on-michigan-house-bill-5111 Education Commission of the States. (2020, September 28). 50-state comparison: State K-3 policies. Retrieved from https://reports.ecs.org/comparisons/ state-k-3-policies-19 Eide, E. R., & Showalter, M. H. (2001). The effect of grade retention on educational and labor market outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 20(6), 563–576. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20  U.S.C. § 6301 (1965). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED017539 Ellwein, M.  C., & Glass, G.  V. (1989). Ending social promotion in Waterford: Appearances and reality. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 28–33). The Falmer Press. Fiester, L. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/resources/ early-warning-why-reading-by-the-end-of-third-grade-matters Florida Department of Education (n.d.). Non-promotions in Florida’s public schools (2010–2011) [Excel spreadsheet]. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/ accountability/data-sys/edu-info-accountability-services/pk-12-publicschool-data-pubs-reports/archive.stml Foundation for Excellence in Education. (2016). ExcelinEd 2016 annual report. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590695.pdf Frey, N. (2005). Retention, social promotion, and academic redshirting: What do we know and need to know? Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 332–346. Gadsden, V. L. (1994). Understanding family literacy: Conceptual issues facing the field (NCAL technical report TR94–02). National Center on Adult Literacy. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED374339.pdf Glidden, H. (1998). Making standards matter 1998. An annual fifty-state report on efforts to raise academic standards. American Federation of Teachers. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L.  No. 103–226, § 108, Stat. 130 (1994). Retrieved from http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=&req= granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title20-section5812&f=&fq=&num=0&hl=false&e dition=prelim

56 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Gomez, V., & Doherty, C. (2021, July 22). Wide partisan divide on whether voting is a fundamental right or a privilege with responsibilities. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/22/ wide-partisan-divide-on-whether-voting-is-a-fundamental-right-or-a-privilegewith-responsibilities/ Grant, A. (2014). Sixteen going on seventh grade: Over-age students in New York City middle schools. Advocates for Children of New  York. Retrieved from https://www.advocatesforchildren.org/sites/default/files/library/sixteen_ going_on_seventh_grade_overage_MS_report.pdf?pt=1 Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2007). Revisiting grade retention: An evaluation of Florida’s test-based promotion policy. Education Finance and Policy, 2(4), 319–340. Grissom, J. B., & Shepard, L. A. (1989). Repeating and dropping out of school. In L.  Shepard & M.  Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 34–63). The Falmer Press. Hanford, E. (2018). At a loss for words: How a flawed idea is teaching millions of kids to be poor readers. APM Reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/08/22/whats-wrong-how-schools-teach-reading Hernandez, D. J. (2012). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Annie E.  Casey Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/resources/double-jeopardy Hertel-Fernandez, A. (2019). State capture. Oxford University Press. Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. Shepard & M. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 28–33). The Falmer Press. Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 225–236. House, E. R. (1998, Nov.). The predictable failure of Chicago’s student retention program [Conference paper]. Conference on Rethinking Retention to Help All Students Succeed, Chicago, IL, United States. https://www.designsforchange. org/pdfs.house.pdf Huddleston, A. P. (2014). Achievement at whose expense? A literature review of test-based grade retention policies in U.S. schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(18). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n18.2014 Huddleston, A. P. (2015). “Making the difficult choice”: Understanding Georgia’s test-based grade retention policy in reading. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(51). Huddleston, A. P., & Rockwell, E. C. (2015). Assessment for the masses: A historical critique of high-stakes testing in reading. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 3(1), 38–49.

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

57

Hughes, J. N., West, S. G., Kim, H., & Bauer, S. S. (2018). Effect of early grade retention on school completion: A prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 974–991. Jackson, G. B. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 613–635. Jacob, B. A. (2017). The wisdom of mandatory grade retention. The Education Digest, 82(7), 29–31. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2009). The effect of grade retention on high school completion. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 33–58. Jasper, K.  M. (2016). The effects of mandated third grade retention on standard diploma acquisition and student outcomes: A policy analysis of Florida’s A+ plan (Publication No. 10254485) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida Gulf Coast University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Jimerson, S. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association of early grade retention and late adolescent education and employment outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 37(3), 243–272. Jimerson, S. R. (2001a). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086124 Jimerson, S. R. (2001b). A synthesis of grade retention research: Looking backward and moving forward. The California School Psychologist, 6, 47–59. Jimerson, S. R., & Ferguson, P. (2007). A longitudinal study of grade retention: Academic and behavioral outcomes of retained students through adolescence. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 314. Jimerson, S. R., & Kaufman, A. M. (2003). Reading, writing, and retention: A primer on grade retention research. The Reading Teacher, 56(7), 622–635. Jimerson, S.  R., & Renshaw, T.  L. (2012). Retention and social promotion. Principal Leadership, 13(1), 12–16. Jimerson, S., Carlson, E., Rotert, M., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L.  A. (1997). A prospective, longitudinal study of the correlates and consequences of early grade retention. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 3–25. Jimerson, S. R., Anderson, G. E., & Whipple, A. D. (2002). Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the relation between grade retention and dropping out of high school. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4), 441–457. Jimerson, S. R., Pletcher, S. M., Graydon, K., Schnurr, B. L., Nickerson, A. B., & Kundert, D.  K. (2006). Beyond grade retention and social promotion: Promoting the social and academic competence of students. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 85–97. Katznelson, I., & Weir, M. (1985). Schooling for all: Class, race, and the decline of the democratic ideal. University of California Press.

58 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Krueger, P. (2010). It’s not just a method! The epistemic and political work of young people’s lifeworlds at the school–prison nexus. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(3), 383–408. Labaree, D. F. (1984). Setting the standard: Alternative policies for student promotion. Harvard Educational Review, 54(1), 67–87. Lange, C. M., Rhim, L. M., & Ahearn, E. M. (2008). Special education in charter schools: The view from state education agencies. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21(1), 12–21. Lay, J.  C., & Bauman, A. (2019). Private governance of public schools: Representation, priorities, and compliance in New Orleans charter school boards. Urban Affairs Review, 55(4), 1006–1034. Lorence, J. (2006). Retention and academic achievement research revisited from a United States perspective. International Education Journal, 7(5), 731–777. Lorence, J. (2014). Third-grade retention and reading achievement in Texas: A nine year panel study. Social Science Research, 48, 1–19. Lorence, J., & Dworkin, A. G. (2006). Elementary grade retention in Texas and reading achievement among racial groups: 1994–2002. Review of Policy Research, 23(5), 999–1033. Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm shift. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33(1), 15–24. Mathis, W. (2011, June). Review of “Florida formula for student achievement: Lessons for the nation.” National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-florida-formula McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. (2006). Contamination of current accountability systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 762–766. McGill-Franzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., & Zeig, J. L. (2006). The confluence of two policy mandates: Core reading programs and third-grade retention in Florida. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 67–91. Meisels, S. J., & Liaw, F.-R. (1993). Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up? The Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 69–77. Meyer, P. (2012). Advice for education reformers: be bold! A conversation with Jeb Bush. Education Next, 12(4), 58–63. Retrieved from https://www.educationnext.org/advice-for-education-reformers-be-bold/ Miller, B. (2014). Lessons from Florida’s third grade reading retention policy and implications for Arizona. Helios Education Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.helios.org/news-media/publications/lessons-from-florida-thirdgrade-reading-retention National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (1998). Position statement: Student grade retention and social promotion. Retrieved from https://web. archive.org/web/20030414000004/http://www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_graderetent.html

2 

RETENTION IN GRADE AND THIRD-GRADE “TRIGGER” LAWS… 

59

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from https://eric.ed. gov/?id=ED226006 National Conference of State Legislatures. (2019). Third-grade reading legislation [map]. Retrieved August 4, 2021, from https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/third-grade-reading-legislation.aspx National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/ Niklason, L. B. (1984). Nonpromotion: A pseudoscientific solution. Psychology in the Schools, 21(4), 485–499. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 101, Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/ publ110/PLAW-107publ110.pdf Penfield, R. D. (2010). Test-based grade retention: Does it stand up to professional standards for fair and appropriate test use? Educational Researcher, 39(2), 110–119. Penniman, N. (2002, July 1), Outing ALEC: The most powerful lobby you’ve never heard of. The American Prospect, 13(12), 12–13. Retrieved from https:// prospect.org/features/outing-alec/ Peterson, S. E., DeGracie, J. S., & Ayabe, C. R. (1987). A longitudinal study of the effects of retention/promotion on academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 107–118. Progress Michigan. (2012, July 19). Who is writing Michigan’s laws? ALEC exposed in Michigan. Retrieved from https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/08/Who-is-Writing-Our-Laws-ALEC-Exposed-inMichigan.pdf Rhim, L. M., Kothari, S., & Lancet, S. (2019). Key trends in special education in charter schools in 2015–16: Secondary analysis of the Civil Rights Data Collection. National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools. Retrieved from http://centerforlearerequity.org/report/crdc-analysis-15-16/ Roderick, M. (1994). Grade retention and school dropout: Investigating the association. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 729–759. Roderick, M., & Nagaoka, J. (2005). Retention under Chicago’s high-stakes testing program: Helpful, harmful, or harmless? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), 309–340. Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. S. (2003). High stakes testing in Chicago: Effects on achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333–358. Rose, S., & Schimke, K. (2012). Third grade literacy policies: Identification, intervention, retention. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/01/01/54/10154.pdf

60 

G. P. DELLAVECCHIA

Schwager, M. T., Mitchell, D. E., Mitchell, T. K., & Hecht, J. B. (1992). How school district policy influences grade level retention in elementary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 421–438. Schwerdt, G., West, M. R., & Winters, M. A. (2017). The effects of test-based retention on student outcomes over time: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida. Journal of Public Economics, 152, 154–169. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1989). Introduction and overview. In L. A. Shepard & M.  L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades: Research and policies on retention (pp. 1–15). The Falmer Press. Silberglitt, B., Appleton, J. J., Burns, M. K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2006a). Examining the effects of grade retention on student reading performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 44(4), 255–270. Silberglitt, B., Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & Appleton, J. J. (2006b). Does the timing of grade retention make a difference? Examining the effects of early versus later retention. School Psychology Review, 35(1), 134–141. Smith, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1987). What doesn’t work: Explaining policies of retention in early grades. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(2), 129–134. Stephanopoulos, N. O. (2018). The causes and consequences of gerrymandering. William & Mary Law Review, 59(5), 2115–2158. Stephanopoulos, N. O., & McGhee, E. M. (2015). Partisan gerrymandering and the efficiency gap. University of Chicago Law Review, 82(2), 831–900. U.S.  Constitutional amendment. (n.d.). https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2010/06/how-tocite-the-us-constitution-in-apa-style.html U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A guide for educators and state and local leaders. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED430319.pdf U.S.  Department of Education. (2004, October). The history of “no child left behind.” Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/ guide_pg12.html Valencia, R. R., & Villarreal, B. J. (2005). Texas’ second wave of high-stakes testing: Anti-social promotion legislation, grade retention, and adverse impact on minorities. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp.  113–152). State University of New York Press. Xia, N., & Kirby, S. N. (2009). Retaining students in grade: A literature review of the effects of retention on students’ academic and nonacademic outcomes. (Technical Report No. 678). RAND Education. Retrieved from http://www. rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR678/ Yamamoto, K., & Byrnes, D. A. (1987). Primary children’s ratings of the stressfulness of experiences. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 2, 117–121.

CHAPTER 3

Remedial Reading Programs: Identification, Instruction, and Impacts of a Separate System for Learning Katherine K. Frankel

Introduction Remedial reading programs have existed in K-12 education in the United States for decades (Harris, 1967; Scammacca et al., 2016), as have questions and concerns about their effectiveness as a way to support students’ literacy learning in school (Allington, 1994). While the specific terminology to describe these programs has varied over time (e.g., compensatory reading instruction, developmental reading, remedial reading, reading intervention), the premise of the approach has remained fairly consistent. That is, remedial reading programs are intended to support readers who have experienced difficulty with reading in school to “catch up” with their peers through supplemental instruction. The term remediation (derived from the word “remedy”; see Fig. 3.1) dates back to the early 1900s, where it was used to index a deficiency

K. K. Frankel (*) Boston University, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_3

61

62 

K. K. FRANKEL

Fig. 3.1  Contrasting etymologies of “remediation”

Remediation “Remedy” • Deficit orientation • Internal to the reader • Emphasis on singular outcomes • Focus on diagnosis • Separate activity

“Mediation” • Learning orientation • Situated interactions between readers, texts, and contexts • Emphasis on complex processes • Focus on instruction • Embedded activity

located within the reader and accompanied by related medical terms such as “diagnosis” and “clinic” (Johnston & Allington, 1991). Johnston and Allington’s (1991) definition of remediation as encompassing “efforts to instruct any child whose reading development has, by some arbitrary standard, been deemed less than satisfactory” (p. 988) reflects this orientation and how it often has been taken up in schools. Historically, therefore, remedial reading programs have operated from a deficit perspective that itself has been perpetuated over time by policies and related funding initiatives. For example, evaluations of remedial reading programs often focus on compliance with regulations, policies, and audits rather than on understanding and seeking to resolve students’ experiences of reading difficulty through responsive instruction (Johnston & Allington, 1991). This focus has led to various issues, including the perceived need to maintain separate programs (whether pullout or push-in) run by specialist teachers or paraprofessionals who are funded through state and federal reading initiatives and, therefore, subject to oversight and review by these entities. As a result, remedial reading programs tend to be fragmented, separate from, and often not aligned with classroom instruction (Allington et  al., 1987; Allington & Johnston, 1986; Allington & Shake, 1986; Hyde & Moore, 1988; Johnston et  al., 1985; McGill-­ Franzen & Allington, 1991; Walp & Walmsley, 1989). These trends have persisted over time in response to policies that continue to operate from a deficit perspective, despite efforts by some practitioners and literacy researchers to reframe the conversation and adopt a re-mediation orientation. The term re-mediation (derived from the word “mediation”; see Fig. 3.1) means to “mediate again” (Alvermann & Rush, 2004; Cole & Griffin, 1983; Gutiérrez et al., 2009; Luke & Elkins, 2000).

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

63

From this perspective, instead of locating problems within individual readers, the focus is on shifting and expanding elements of the instructional context to be responsive to students’ reading and learning in ways that are socially, culturally, and historically situated. For example, educators and their students engaged in re-mediated literacy learning work together to consider the multiple and varied literacy practices in which they engage in and beyond school. They draw from these practices as resources for shared learning in their classrooms and schools, and as catalysts for engagement in different kinds of learning activities characterized by heterogeneity (i.e., encompassing a diversity of identities and experiences with language, literacy, and learning) rather than sameness (Gutiérrez et al., 2009). Despite some scholars’ ongoing efforts to adopt a re-mediation orientation to policy and practice in reading, in this chapter I show how, over time, the enactment of policies intended to support students’ reading, if not the policies themselves, continues to perpetuate a remediation orientation in which educational structures remain largely unchanged and not adequately responsive to the students that they serve. To do this, in each section I provide an overview of the general policy context and research trends at the time, but with a particular focus on their implications for adolescent readers and the secondary reading programs designed to support them. I argue that a remediation orientation has become increasingly prevalent in secondary contexts, with consequences for adolescents’ literacy learning that have not been fully accounted for in existing policy and research. I conclude by amplifying previous concerns and calls for future policies and related funding initiatives that support a re-mediation orientation to supporting all literacy learners in school. A re-mediation orientation takes seriously the need to (a) understand readers holistically and in light of their strengths as well as challenges in literacy, (b) embrace the complexity of reading, and (c) attend to how readers experience literacy instruction as crucial information to consider as part of policy evaluations.

Reflecting on the Past: Remedial Reading Since the 1960s The main thesis of this chapter is that remedial reading programs in the United States have not lived up to their promise. For decades, researchers have called attention to the limitations of such programs. These limitations include lack of meaningful transfer across contexts or over time

64 

K. K. FRANKEL

(Balow, 1965; Evans, 1972; Gittelman & Feingold, 1983; Mullin & Summers, 1983) and a lack of congruence between remedial and classroom instruction (Allington et  al., 1987; Allington & Johnston, 1986; Allington & Shake, 1986; Hyde & Moore, 1988; Johnston et al., 1985; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1991; Walp & Walmsley, 1989). Increasingly, concerns from practitioners and students themselves highlight these and other limitations of remedial approaches to supporting students’ literacy learning, particularly for adolescents (Bean et al., 1995; Brooks & Rodela, 2018; Frankel, 2016; Frankel et  al., 2021; Ginsberg, 2020; Learned, 2016; Masterson, 2020). In this chapter, I trace the evolution of these trends and address two main tensions that have persisted over time: 1. Focusing on a singular diagnosis of reading difficulty versus focusing on instruction that is informed by dynamic profiles of readers’ strengths and areas in need of support. 2. Privileging simple views of reading and reading development over more complex perspectives that acknowledge a greater range of individual differences in reading development. I also propose a third tension that has become increasingly salient in recent years: 3. The tendency to focus solely on average program outcomes, often measured by mean standardized test scores, without considering a broader range of outcomes and processes, including how individuals themselves (e.g., students, teachers) experience remedial contexts. These three framing tensions—which are reflected in the remediation-­ as-­remedy versus re-mediation-as-mediation distinction described above— have persisted over time in both policy and research. For example, for decades, various federal and state policies have sought to address concerns about children’s reading through a “supplement-not-supplant” (Allington & Johnston, 1986, p. 18) approach introduced in the 1960s as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In practice, therefore, schools often sought to enact a supplemental approach through the use of additional or separate programs and curricula as part of a pullout model of instruction (i.e., in which children received additional reading support outside of the context of regular classroom instruction). However, research

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

65

in the decades following indicated that students rarely received more reading instruction in remedial contexts as compared with their regular classrooms (Allington et al., 1986; Haynes & Jenkins, 1986; Johnston et al., 1985). The instruction that they did experience was not coordinated or congruent with other contexts in school or beyond (Allington et al., 1987; Allington & Johnston, 1986; Allington & Shake, 1986; Hyde & Moore, 1988; Johnston et al., 1985; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1991; Walp & Walmsley, 1989). Moreover, efforts to assess program effectiveness tended to focus on average improvements on decontextualized standardized tests, the results of which have since been called into question by researchers concerned with assessment integrity (e.g., see Reed et  al., 2014). Therefore, determinations of program effectiveness are constrained by the quality of the tests themselves and the extent to which a particular program is found to improve reading on average without also considering the impact of that program across all readers, including readers’ contextualized reading processes and experiences of remedial contexts that cannot be captured by a reading test. Indeed, while research that attends to quantifiable program outcomes has persisted over time (Scammacca et  al., 2016), scholars from other research traditions have increasingly advocated to expand what counts as evidence of effectiveness (e.g., Almasi et al., 2006; Frankel et al., 2021). For example, researchers have sought to frame and challenge remedial reading instruction to focus on improved instruction, the complexity of reading and reading development, and a better understanding of how children and youth experience these contexts. Typically informed by sociocultural perspectives on reading, these research directions are important because they support an increasingly holistic and situated understanding of reading instruction that looks beyond test scores to identify other outcomes and processes that are consequential to reading development (e.g., curriculum/instruction, students’ experiences, students’ beliefs about themselves as readers). However, current policies do not align with these research trends. Motivated by a need to find the “right” program that will “solve” children’s and youth’s reading difficulties, some researchers and policymakers tend to focus on changes in reading test scores as the essential measure of success for both reading programs and the individual readers whom those programs are intended to serve. As a result, there seems to be a disconnect between reading policies—including what is written into law and how it is enacted and evaluated—and what other, mostly qualitative research

66 

K. K. FRANKEL

indicates about the consequences of those policies for readers beyond a report of average test scores. Franzak (2006) has grappled with this issue by proposing that educational stakeholders “participate in policy and research processes with a ‘zoom’ consciousness that allows us to see both the big picture of the educational environment and the students at the center of our work” (p. 239). In the sections that follow, I provide a “big picture” overview of the policy contexts and research trends related to remedial reading across six decades to illuminate how the three tensions (i.e., singular diagnosis versus instruction, simple explanations versus complex solutions, and program outcomes versus individuals’ experiences of remedial contexts) have played out over time. I then “zoom” in to examine more closely some of the consequences of such policies for K-12 students in general, and for adolescent readers, in particular, to inform future policy, research, and practice. The 1960s and 1970s Broadly speaking, policy and research in the 1960s and 1970s operated from a remediation orientation focused on singular diagnosis and treatment of reading difficulties and an emphasis on program outcomes such as overall changes to students’ reading performance as measured by test scores. Framed by concerns about insufficient basic skills instruction in reading, particularly for students living in poverty or with diagnosed learning disabilities, the prevailing solution at the time was to “treat” reading difficulties through intensive, separate instructional programming and to measure the effectiveness of that programming by documenting average changes in reading test scores. Policy Context  Remedial reading policies in the 1960s and 1970s focused on two distinct groups of students. In the first case, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided additional assistance and funding to schools serving children described in the Act as “from low-­ income families” (Pub. Law 89–10, Apr. 11, 1965, §201). In Harris’s (1967) five-decades history of remedial reading in the United States, he called the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act “the climax of the decade” (p.  11) for remedial reading, with “much of this money [going] into an almost infinite variety of remedial reading projects and programs” (p. 11). As early as the 1960s, Harris (1967) called attention to two of the tensions highlighted previously. Specifically, he addressed

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

67

early trends in medical research to focus on diagnosis over instruction versus trends among educators to develop assessments to inform instruction. He also noted early attempts to simplify complex issues. For example, the publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read (Flesch, 1955), which argued that “children were failing to read just because they weren’t being taught phonics” (Harris, 1967, p.  8), narrowed conversations among researchers, policymakers, educators, and families about the nature of reading. That is, by focusing on phonics without also considering other key aspects of reading development (e.g., comprehension processes), reading instruction (e.g., responsiveness of instruction to readers’ diverse languages, literacies, and cultures), and the broader systemic educational and societal inequities that impact teaching and learning, the phonics-­ focused narrative about reading failed to account for its complexities. Around this same time, separate but parallel efforts focused on students with learning disabilities. For example, in 1969 the Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Act mandated support services for students with learning disabilities, and the Right to Read Act, also of 1969, prompted an increased focus on remedial reading programs as they related to students with learning disabilities. In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act required that all public schools provide equal access to education for children with disabilities, many of whom had previously been denied the right to an education. This was a historic shift that, combined with the previously mentioned legislation, led to increased attention to supporting diverse learners. However, while separate federal policies at this time identified two distinct groups of students as in need of additional reading instruction, approaches to supporting them were remarkably similar, with an overall emphasis on identifying and treating reading difficulties as part of remedial programming that was separate from students’ other instruction. Research Trends  At this time, researchers similarly focused on the efficacy of a variety of remedial reading instructional approaches, including the longer-term outcomes of supplemental reading support. They framed their inquiries around the need to remedy perceived reading difficulties (and thereby improve reading achievement) through additional, separate instruction; they determined the effectiveness of this approach largely by documenting average changes in reading test scores and whether those changes persisted over time. For example, Balow (1965) conducted a study to examine the extent to which fifth and sixth graders’ reading gains

68 

K. K. FRANKEL

persisted beyond their remedial instruction. He found that the students made reading gains through a ten-week summer program of two hours of individual and small group instruction, but that those gains did not persist if instruction ended and persisted at a lower rate if they continued with less intensive remedial instruction. In this case, the research focused on the outcomes of a particular, separate program, as measured by reading test scores, without substantive information about the content of that program or the nature of interactions between students and teachers therein. In a critique of approaches to, and studies of, remediation like the one described above, Evans (1972) noted two assumptions that have not been supported by research that underlies special reading programs (his focus, in this case, was on remedial reading programs in secondary schools): (a) that the instruction will significantly improve the reading ability of a majority of the students enrolled and (b) that the gains will be sustained after the end of the course and positively affect academic performance. Evans (1972) also critiqued the research methods used to study these programs, noting that the lack of control groups and the reporting of mean gains, which do not take into account how individual readers experienced a program, were problematic. He further noted that most gains do not persist long term, an issue also raised by Balow’s (1965) study. Ultimately, Evans (1972) concluded, “There is little indication in the literature that the studies of effectiveness have led to instructional changes, better selection procedures, or reassessment of student needs” (p. 114). Finally, in keeping with these trends, Campbell (1978) reiterated some of the persistent tensions outlined by Harris (1967) during the previous decade, particularly the emphasis on a “single index of reading achievement” without taking into account that reading actually involves a “complex array of skills” (p. 686). He called for educators to help determine the nature of public policies related to reading, particularly in terms of communicating the complexity of reading and developing assessments to capture this complexity. Thus, during the 1960s and 1970s, there was a tendency to focus on narrow program outcomes while also questioning the extent to which such a focus, including the methods employed to determine program efficacy, was appropriate or sufficient. In particular, some scholars questioned the extent to which the complexity of reading could be captured through a single measure of reading achievement, a point which has been extended in more recent critiques to illuminate how such measures privilege white, middle-class, and English-dominant norms of reading (Willis, 2019). At

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

69

this point, researchers paid little attention to the contexts of instruction or how teachers and students experienced them. The 1980s and 1990s Despite theoretical shifts in literacy research during the 1980s and 1990s, which highlighted both the situated nature of literacy (e.g., Heath, 1983; Street, 1984) and the complex ways in which (dis)ability in reading is constructed (e.g., Lipson & Wixson, 1986), policy and research related to remedial reading continued to operate from a remediation orientation by focusing on the efficacy of supplemental programming as a solution to the reading difficulties encountered by two distinct groups of students (i.e., students categorized as living in poverty and students with diagnosed learning disabilities). Framed as a national crisis that required increased accountability, the solution continued to orient toward “treating” reading difficulties through separate programming and with increasingly high-­ stakes consequences for individual students and schools that did not show sufficient improvement on test scores. However, certain shifts in orientation were evident in research that began to consider the particular contexts of instruction across remedial and classroom settings, including teachers’ perspectives. Policy Context In 1981, Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act became Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, which continued to “[provide] school districts with financial support for compensatory [i.e., remedial] education services for economically and educationally disadvantaged children and youth,” with “about 90% of all districts [receiving] some federal funds to support remedial efforts under this Act (Carter, 1984)” (Allington et al., 1986, p. 15). A decade later, reading instruction for students with disabilities, as distinct from students served under Title 1/Chapter 1, was further defined by the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990, an amended version of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act that was signed into law in 1975. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act continued to guarantee access to a “free appropriate public education to all children and youth with disabilities” (Pub. Law 101–476, Oct. 30, 1990, §618(a)(2)(A)) and ensure early intervention, special education, and related services for these children and youth, including those with specific learning disabilities.

70 

K. K. FRANKEL

Thus, in the 1980s and 1990s, federal policies continued to identify and categorize two distinct groups of students as in need of additional reading support with an ongoing emphasis on identifying and treating reading difficulties as part of remedial programming that was separate from classroom instruction. Increasingly during this time, policymakers required that all programming intended to support students’ reading be based on “scientific” reading research. At the end of the century, what counted as “scientific” research was operationalized in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) to mean experimental or quasi-experimental research studies (Allington, 2006). Therefore, the turn of the century marked an increased focus on, and oversight of, reading programs at the state and local levels that aligned with particular, quantifiable measures of program effectiveness. In some states, this focus was accompanied by high-stakes tests in which poor testing outcomes had consequences for individual students (e.g., eligibility to graduate) as well as schools (e.g., low performance scores and rankings, increased state oversight and control). Research Trends Alongside alarmist rhetoric (e.g., the 1983 report A Nation at Risk), which framed issues in reading, and education more broadly, as a national security crisis that demanded increased accountability, existed another body of research seeking to understand instructional environments and how they shape students’ experiences of reading. This work began to consider the implications of students’ experiences for what counts as success (Allington, 1983) and how program effectiveness is measured (Mullin & Summers, 1983). Reflecting an increasingly interactionist perspective on reading dis/ability (Lipson & Wixson, 1986) that sought to understand the specific conditions under which different readers learn, researchers wanted to know what actually happened in remedial reading classes, beyond test score outcomes. For example, Allington et al. (1986) argued that: Although Chapter I [previously Title 1] programs have been in operation for two decades and have been regularly evaluated on local, state, and national levels, we still know little about the nature of the instructional components of remedial programs. (p. 16)

To better understand the nature of remedial instruction, Allington et al. (1986) observed classroom and remedial instruction in four different

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

71

schools. In all four schools, remedial programs encompassed both Chapter 1 and special education programming. They found that students in these remedial programs spent much of their time completing independent workbook or worksheet activities (as opposed to reading or engaging with connected text). There was little evidence of individualized instruction or monitoring of student progress through formative assessment and a general lack of coherence and congruence between remedial and classroom instruction in terms of materials, skills, and strategies. Ultimately, the authors concluded that students receiving remedial reading instruction in these contexts did not receive more reading instruction, and may in fact have received less instruction, as a result of the need for additional transition time from one instructional context to another. Similarly, Haynes and Jenkins (1986) found that students in special education resource rooms did not receive any more reading instruction than their peers and that the reading instruction provided in those resource rooms involved more individual seatwork and less instruction than what students experienced in their regular classrooms. Researchers also wondered about the interactions between classroom and remedial reading instruction (e.g., related to materials, time use, and instructional foci), especially congruence between the two, and found little. For example, Johnston et al. (1985) conducted a study in which they interviewed sets of students, classroom teachers, reading teachers, and supervisors (e.g., principals) to explore congruence in materials, time use, and instructional foci between classroom and compensatory (i.e., remedial) reading instruction. They found that there was a general lack of communication between classroom and remedial teachers, and that neither teachers nor specialists knew very much about the materials or instructional foci of the other contexts in which their students received reading instruction. Moreover, they found a general lack of clarity across students, teachers, and contexts about the goals of reading instruction. For example, remedial reading teachers tended to emphasize comprehension as the goal of instruction, while classroom teachers focused more on decoding. For their part, students were generally unclear about the purpose of the reading instruction they encountered across contexts. In light of these findings, these and other researchers stressed the need for coordination across remedial and classroom instruction (Allington & Johnston, 1986; Allington & Shake, 1986; Walp & Walmsley, 1989), including at the secondary level (Allington et al., 1987) and at broader scales (e.g., school, district) (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1988; Hyde & Moore, 1988).

72 

K. K. FRANKEL

Into the 1990s, researchers continued to pay increased, critical attention to what was happening in remedial reading contexts (Bean et  al., 1991; Gelzheiser & Meyers, 1991; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1991; Vaughn et al., 1998) and to the perspectives of educators in those contexts (Bean et  al., 1995). For example, Bean et  al. (1995) conducted focus groups with reading specialists, classroom teachers, and principals across multiple districts to understand what educators believed was important in creating effective Chapter 1 reading programs and how they addressed issues and resolved problems in implementing these programs. They found that participants wanted to be involved in conversations and decisions about changes to Chapter 1 programs. They argued that educators’ perspectives on the strengths and challenges of Chapter 1 programming called attention to different kinds of considerations that were not always consistent with previous findings (e.g., how pullout programs may promote students’ self-esteem rather than hinder it). Their findings prompted a call for alternative evaluation measures, for example, related to students’ self-esteem, that they argued could not be adequately measured by norm-­ referenced tests. While teachers’ perspectives featured more prominently in this research, with few exceptions in K-12 education (e.g., Johnston et al., 1985) and postsecondary contexts (e.g., Hull et al., 1991), researchers had not yet turned their attention to how children and youth experienced remedial contexts as part of broader social, cultural, and historical systems, and the consequences of these experiences. Also at this time, some researchers explored the impact of early, state-­ level high-stakes testing on remediation. For example, Allington and McGill-Franzen (1992) found that there were unintended effects of educational reform in New York, where high-stakes testing led to increases in retention and special education diagnoses as alternatives to remediation. Conversations also continued about how to best support secondary students’ reading. For example, Barry (1997) conducted a survey of principals to capture the landscape of reading programs in high schools and compared her findings to those from a similar survey conducted in 1940. She found that most (67%) of high schools had a program for secondary students who experienced difficulty with reading, and that most placement decisions and subsequent evaluations were based on a wide array of different standardized test scores (61%) and teacher recommendations (58%). Barry (1997) concluded that, compared with the 1940s, there seemed to be less time and space for reading programs in high schools; less of a tendency to rely solely on standardized test scores for placement and

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

73

evaluation; less emphasis on pullout models (but more reported challenges about how to support students’ reading in their content-area classes); and more emphasis on meaning-based, rather than isolated and skills-based, approaches to reading instruction. It is noteworthy that the trends documented by Barry (1997) toward more robust and embedded reading support in secondary schools existed alongside an increasingly narrow definition of “scientific” reading research among early reading advocates. This definition continued to privilege quantifiable outcome measures and evidence from experimental or quasi-experimental studies over other kinds of information, such as teachers’ and students’ experiences, perspectives, and recommendations. 2000s and 2010s At the turn of the century, state and federal policies related to remedial reading maintained a remediation orientation with increasingly prescriptive accountability pressures tied to students’ and schools’ performance on high-stakes tests. At the same time, there existed a growing body of research from a re-mediation orientation. Frequently grounded in sociocultural perspectives on literacy and learning (Heath, 1983; Street, 1984), this research built on previous work from the 1980s and 1990s. This previous work provided empirical evidence for the situated and socially constructed nature of literacy, and the importance of understanding from a critical perspective the broader contexts in which children and youth engage in literacy practices within and beyond their classrooms and schools (e.g., Hull et  al., 1991). This research also extended earlier studies of remedial reading (e.g., Bean et al., 1995; Johnston et al., 1985) that called attention to the ways in which various individuals (e.g., teachers, specialists, students) experienced remedial programming differently, with a particular emphasis on students’ and their teachers’ experiences of remediation. These shifts in orientation revealed key differences in how issues of reading remediation were framed in policy and research. That is, while policies at this time maintained a focus on increasing programming, oversight, and accountability as the solution to the disparities in reading achievement documented by test scores (e.g., the ongoing opportunity gaps indicated by the National Assessment of Education Progress), some literacy researchers proposed a different approach. Their approach oriented to the situated, culturally and historically informed ways that readers engage with literacy as a first step toward re-mediating instruction itself (i.e., as an

74 

K. K. FRANKEL

alternative to remediating individual students or groups of students based on perceived deficits). Policy Context  The 2000s brought the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as No Child Left Behind and related Reading First initiatives in 2001, which provided federal funding to schools and promoted the use of research-based instructional practices and programs focused on early reading (Gamse et al., 2008). Informed by the definition of “scientific” reading research that was operationalized by the National Reading Panel to include only experimental or quasi-­ experimental studies, federal policies at the turn of the century contributed to increased external pressures on states, districts, and local schools to adopt particular practices and programs aligned with the findings of the National Reading Panel (e.g., programs focused heavily on systematic phonics instruction). Federal policies further mandated more frequent testing and reporting of outcomes for all students. Schools that were unable to provide evidence of adequate progress as measured by mandated and increasingly high-stakes tests were subject to “corrective actions” (Allington, 2006, p. 3), including mandated remediation (i.e., tutoring) for students not meeting state standards and loss of local control (Shanahan, 2014) sometimes culminating in school closures that disproportionately impacted schools serving large populations of minoritized students. The 2000s also brought the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and related Response to Intervention initiatives in 2004. In some ways, Response to Intervention, which focused on intervention and prevention as alternatives to problematic IQ-achievement discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities (i.e., due to testing and placement bias and disproportionality for minoritized students) seemed to be an attempt to respond to some of the previous critiques about remediation. For example, Response to Intervention sought to address calls to improve regular classroom reading instruction for all students and to provide opportunities for early intervention of basic reading skills in elementary school (Johnston & Allington, 1991). As Response to Intervention initiatives began to translate into district- and school-level policies and practices, Johnston (2011), echoing previous scholarship about the consequences of remedial approaches (e.g., Johnston & Allington, 1991), called attention to some of its possibilities and challenges. Specifically, he explained the ways in which Response to Intervention held promise to reduce the number of children classified

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

75

with a learning disability by approaching literacy difficulties as an “instructional problem” (p. 519) but also noted trends toward instead treating it as a “measurement problem” (p. 516) that maintained a focus on identifying and labeling students. Response to Intervention also had implications for secondary schools (Brozo, 2009; Ehren et al., 2010), and a series of reports during the 2000s highlighted the importance of attending to students’ reading beyond the primary years (e.g., Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Kamil et al., 2008; National Council of Teachers of English, 2007). These reports were followed by federal initiatives, for example, the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program authorized in 2010, and related policies and funding opportunities focused on adolescent literacy (Boulay et  al., 2015). As funding for adolescent literacy initiatives grew, programs designed to support adolescents’ reading proliferated, as did research to evaluate their effectiveness. Overwhelmingly, these evaluations followed the definition of “scientific” reading research that was operationalized by the National Reading Panel to include only experimental and quasi-experimental studies of reading. This ongoing focus on particular kinds of research over other evidence of effectiveness perpetuated a remediation orientation characterized by a focus on quantitative outcomes, an overly simplistic view of reading, and a lack of attention to the substance of the programs and curricula that were the focus of the evaluations, including how adolescents themselves experienced them. In 2015, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act, which addressed some of the challenges of No Child Left Behind’s prescriptive requirements. The Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) called for each state to have academic standards specific to reading/language arts, mathematics, and science, and to implement “a set of high-quality student academic assessments” (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(A)) for each that are aligned with the standards. With respect to reading, the Act outlined guidance and funding for state-­ level development and implementation of “comprehensive literacy instruction plans” (20 U.S.C. § 6641(a)(1)) and “evidence-based programs that ensure high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction for students most in need” (20 U.S.C. § 6641(a)(2)). The Act included specific guidance to provide “intensive, supplemental, accelerated, and explicit intervention and support in reading and writing for children whose literacy skills are below grade level” (§ 20 U.S.C. § 6644(c)(1)(B)) and to coordinate those efforts, as part of the comprehensive literacy instruction plan, across

76 

K. K. FRANKEL

educational stakeholders. The Act further addressed learning disabilities related specifically to literacy (i.e., dyslexia). In the context of the Every Student Succeeds Act, federal policies since the turn of the century seem to continue to privilege a definition of “scientific” reading research that emphasizes quantitative measures of program effectiveness without also considering how other consequential measures (e.g., students’ experiences and perspectives of remedial programming) might inform determinations of what constitutes effectiveness. Research Trends  Following the aforementioned definition of “scientific” research, some of the recent research on remedial reading programs— now, in the wake of Response to Intervention, more commonly referred to as reading interventions—has focused on quantitative evaluations and syntheses of program effectiveness through experimental or quasi-­ experimental research designs (e.g., Balu et al., 2015; Baye et al., 2019; Boulay et  al., 2015; Herrera et  al., 2016; Scammacca et  al., 2016). Therefore, despite emerging evidence to the contrary, reading policies (and some of the research that informs them) continue to frame the problem of reading and reading instruction as an urgent crisis that can be addressed by adopting particular programs or approaches that will “treat” students’ reading difficulties and lead to positive outcomes. Concurrently, however, some of this research has begun to call into question the assumptions that underlie this decades-long framing. For example, while some research indicates that certain approaches to intervention may have positive effects on students’ reading achievement, as measured by average changes in reading test scores, for certain readers, assignment to a reading intervention did not improve reading outcomes and may even have contributed to negative impacts on reading (e.g., Balu et al., 2015). Moreover, scholars also have found that the presumed positive effects of interventions have decreased over time, likely as a result of a combination of factors such as recent shifts from researcher-developed to standardized assessment measures (Scammacca et al., 2016). Other scholars have called attention to some of the limitations of existing reading intervention research (e.g., Reed et al., 2014). Other researchers have further called into question this remediation orientation by providing in-depth and often-critical accounts of the dayto-day practices and activities that comprise reading intervention contexts. Some of these studies focus on understanding how students experience

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

77

curriculum and instruction in elementary intervention contexts (e.g., Erickson, 2019) and secondary reading intervention classes (Frankel, 2016; Learned, 2016). In these cases, the problem of reading is located in the broader contexts and systems through which readers are positioned as deficient and in need of remediation (e.g., through their performance on particular assessments, reading intervention placement policies and practices, and curricular or programmatic adoptions). For example, Erickson (2019) conducted a qualitative case study to understand what students entering third grade perceived to be the benefits and costs of their involvement in a summertime-guided reading intervention and found that boredom (with the topic or text) featured prominently in participants’ perceptions of the program. At the secondary level, Frankel et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative meta-synthesis of research on reading intervention classes in secondary schools and found that youth’s diverse understandings of themselves as readers and writers, combined with the extent to which they viewed their reading classes as relevant to their current or future lives, respectful of their agency, and facilitative of relationships (e.g., with teachers and peers), mediated their experiences and perceptions. In addition, they found that students across studies described placement policies and practices as confusing, frustrating, and embarrassing. While a similar synthesis of qualitative research on elementary students’ perspectives and experiences has not been conducted, Frankel et al.’s (2021) findings suggest that synthesizing and better understanding children’s and youth’s experiences of reading intervention contexts, perhaps alongside and in comparison to quantitative measures and other stakeholder perspectives, is an important direction for future research that could disrupt the remediation orientation toward reading that has persisted for decades in research and policy. Finally, and importantly, scholars have highlighted the persistent inequities that persist in reading research, in general, and in approaches to implementing and studying reading intervention programs, in particular (Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Milner, 2020; Willis, 2019). For example, in her critical and historical critique of Response to Intervention initiatives and reading research, Willis (2019) highlighted the ways in which racial inequities in research and policies related to reading have persisted over time. Specifically, she argued that despite repeated, stated attempts to provide greater educational equity, reading research and policy, particularly as it pertains to special education legislation for students with learning disabilities, has consistently and systematically privileged white, middle-class,

78 

K. K. FRANKEL

and English-dominant norms of reading, reading development, and reading instruction. In so doing, reading research and policy have failed—and will continue to fail—to adequately support the range of students in public schools in the United States, including minoritized students, multilingual students, and students living in poverty. She further argued that a failure on the part of researchers and policymakers to acknowledge these systemic shortcomings rooted in white supremacy has contributed to ongoing racial disproportionality in reading intervention and special education placements and practices.

Looking to the Future: Re-mediating Reading in the 2020s and Beyond Previous findings from six decades of research provide valuable insights about the limitations of remedial reading/reading intervention programs and remarkably consistent recommendations about the kinds of policies and instructional practices that can better support readers in K-12 schools in the United States. However, within the current context of the Every Student Succeeds Act, much of these more recent research trends have not been considered—much less taken up—by policymakers. One explanation for this trend is that the Every Student Succeeds Act seems to follow the aforementioned definition of “scientific” research (U.S.  Department of Education, 2016), also explicated in the What Works Clearinghouse (2017) Standards Handbook, which emphasizes quantifiable outcomes as determined by experimental and quasi-experimental studies over other measures of effectiveness that may provide additional, important insights about remedial reading programs and related interventions. As literacy scholars have noted, there are limitations and potential consequences of basing recommendations for policy and practice solely on quantifiable outcome measures (Almasi et  al., 2006; Greenleaf & Petrosino, 2009; Reynolds, 2021). For example, in a response to Slavin et al.’s (2008) best-­ evidence synthesis of effective middle and high school reading programs, Greenleaf and Petrosino (2009) argued for the importance of qualitative data to be able to attend to contextual factors that influence the implementation of reading programs and their outcomes and that support more robust and situated understandings of the impact of these programs for different students over time. More recently, Reynolds (2021) examined the existing research base that informs policies related to adolescent

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

79

reading and called for an expanded definition of reading that accounts for how reading happens through socially situated practices. He argued that an expanded definition requires methodologies (e.g., design-based research) that can illuminate the relationships and structures that support adolescents’ literacy learning. As these and other scholars have pointed out, research and related policies pertaining to remedial reading programs have failed to account sufficiently for the varied instructional contexts in which such programs are implemented or the diversity of readers that they are intended to serve. Looking to the future, there is a need to refocus our collective attention on (a) understanding readers holistically and in light of their strengths as well as challenges in literacy, (b) embracing the complexity of reading, and (c) attending to how readers experience literacy instruction as crucial information to consider as part of policy evaluations. These future directions are critical because, in their absence, approaches to remedial reading run the risk of perpetuating instructional programming and interventions that are overly simplistic, disconnected, and unresponsive to the diversity of readers whom they are intended to serve. This vision for the future—in which US reading policies embrace the complexity of readers and reading and employ a “zoom consciousness” (Franzak, 2006) to focus more intentionally on the children and youth who are at the center of the work—is not assured. Indeed, current rhetoric and action that seeks to solidify a remediation orientation and oversimplify conceptualizations of reading, reading development, and reading instruction will have real consequences for how children and youth understand what it means to read and how they experience reading instruction into the future. For example, recent calls for a “back to basics” and “structured” approach to remediation index an orientation to literacy learning that is overly simplistic and that does not take into account the “multidimensional” nature of reading informed by “various factors, processes, and sources of information” that attends to the “distinct learning trajectories that young learners traverse as they become readers” (Compton-Lilly et al., 2020, p. S186). As researchers and policymakers look to the future, there are opportunities to expand how the field conceptualizes definitions and measures of effectiveness when it comes to reading. Indeed, recently researchers have called for more conceptually inclusive definitions of literacy that honor its complexity and incorporate findings from research across theoretical and empirical paradigms (e.g., Compton-Lilly et al., 2020; Reynolds, 2021). Other scholars have considered what it might look like to adopt an

80 

K. K. FRANKEL

expansive, comprehensive, and cohesive federal policy that supports literacy learning across the lifespan (Gutiérrez, 2009). Such shifts will require different kinds of questions and serious attention to the “new knowledge base about students from nondominant communities that should push us to move beyond the constraints of traditional approaches” and toward “a comprehensive federal literacy agenda organized around a more robust and expansive understanding of literacy across the lifespan” (Gutiérrez, 2009, p.  481). To avoid maintaining the unsuccessful and unsatisfying trends in remedial reading programming for another 60  years, reading researchers and policymakers need to reflect on and engage the diversity of experiences of remedial reading programs that extend far beyond test scores, and then chart a new way forward. For policies to take into account the diverse, lived experiences of the children and youth that they are intended to serve, evidence of their effectiveness must include the perspectives of those children and youth alongside other outcome measures. Adding an additional remedial reading program or reading intervention class has never been, and never will be, sufficient. A re-mediation orientation is required, and that involves a rethinking, and disruption, of the policies and practices governing both teaching and research alike.

Representative Articles and Artifacts 1960s and 1970s • Balow, B. (1965). The long-term effect of remedial reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 18(7), 581–586. • Harris, A. J. (1967). Five decades of remedial reading. Invitational address presented at the International Reading Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. 1980s and 1990s • Johnston, P., Allington, R., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85(4), 465–477. • Allington, R., Stuetzel, H., Shake, M., & Lamarche, S. (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 26(1), 15–30. • Bean, R.  M., Trovato, C.  A., & Hamilton, R. (1995). Focus on Chapter 1 reading programs: Views of reading specialists, classroom

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

81

teachers, and principals. Literacy Research and Instruction, 34(3), 204–221. • Barry, A. L. (1997). High school reading programs revisited. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(7), 524–531. 2000s and 2010s • Frankel, K.  K. (2016). The intersection of reading and identity in high school literacy intervention classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 37–59. • Learned, J. E. (2016). “The behavior kids”: Examining the conflation of youth reading difficulty and behavior problem positioning among school institutional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1271–1309. • Brooks, M. D., & Rodela, K. C. (2018). Why am I in reading intervention? A dual analysis of entry and exit criteria. The High School Journal, 102(1), 72–93. • Erickson, J.  D. (2019). Primary readers’ perceptions of a camp guided reading intervention: A qualitative case study of motivation and engagement. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 35(4), 354–373. 2020s • Ginsberg, R. (2020). Dueling narratives of a reader labeled as struggling: Positioning, emotion, and power within four differing English course contexts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 25(1), 1–27. • Masterson, J. E. (2020). Reading in “purgatory”: Tactical literacies in a remedial reading class. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 91–109. Trends Across Time • Frankel, K.  K., Brooks, M.  D., & Learned, J.  E. (2021). A meta-­ synthesis of qualitative research on reading intervention classes in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 123(8), 31–58. • Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009). A comprehensive federal literacy agenda: Moving beyond inoculation approaches to literacy policy. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 476–483. • Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Choo, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S.  R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress:

82 

K. K. FRANKEL

Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 756–800. • Willis, A.  I. (2019). Race, Response to intervention, and reading research. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(4), 394–419.

Discussion Questions 1. This chapter presents a “big picture” overview of the policy contexts and research trends related to remedial reading across six decades, with a focus on three tensions (i.e., singular diagnosis versus instruction, simple explanations versus complex solutions, and program outcomes versus individuals’ experience of remedial contexts). In what ways has the relationship between policy and research focused on remedial reading evolved over time in relation to these three tensions? What other tensions beyond the ones explored here are important for stakeholders to consider as they reflect on the past and look to the future? 2. This chapter argues that future policies and research related to remedial reading must take seriously the need to (a) understand readers holistically and in light of their strengths as well as challenges in literacy, (b) embrace the complexity of reading, and (c) attend to how readers experience literacy instruction as crucial information to consider as part of policy evaluations. As educational stakeholders look to the future: • W  hat might a re-mediated approach to reading policy, research, and practice look like in K-12 education? • What questions need to be asked, and by whom? • How can stakeholders expand definitions of effectiveness to encompass other consequential processes and outcomes beyond test scores?

References Allington, R.  L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 548–559. Allington, R. L. (1994). What’s special about special programs for children who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 95–115.

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

83

Allington, R. L. (2006). Reading lessons and federal policy making: An overview and introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 3–15. Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (1986). The coordination among regular classroom reading programs and targeted support programs. In Designs for compensatory education: Conference proceedings and papers (pp. 2–39). Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1988). Coherence or chaos? Qualitative dimensions of the literacy instruction provided low-achievement children. Research/Technical Report. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6(4), 397–414. Allington, R. L., & Shake, M. C. (1986). Remedial reading: Achieving curricular congruence in classroom and clinic. The Reading Teacher, 39(7), 648–654. Allington, R., Stuetzel, H., Shake, M., & Lamarche, S. (1986). What is remedial reading? A descriptive study. Literacy Research and Instruction, 26(1), 15–30. Allington, R. L., Boxer, N. J., & Broikou, K. A. (1987). Jeremy, remedial reading and subject area classes. Journal of Reading, 30(7), 643–645. Almasi, J. F., Garas-York, K., & Shanahan, L. (2006). Qualitative research on text comprehension and the report of the National Reading Panel. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 37–66. Alvermann, D. E., & Rush, L. S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school levels. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 210–227). Guilford. Balow, B. (1965). The long-term effect of remedial reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 18(7), 581–586. Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016–4000). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Barry, A. L. (1997). High school reading programs revisited. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(7), 524–531. Baye, A., Inns, A., Lake, C., & Slavin, R. E. (2019). A synthesis of quantitative research on reading programs for secondary students. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 133–166. Bean, R.  M., Cooley, W.  W., Eichelberger, R.  T., Lazar, M.  K., & Zigmond, N. (1991). In class or pullout: Effects of setting on the remedial reading program. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 445–464. Bean, R. M., Trovato, C. A., & Hamilton, R. (1995). Focus on Chapter 1 reading programs: Views of reading specialists, classroom teachers, and principals. Literacy Research and Instruction, 34(3), 204–221.

84 

K. K. FRANKEL

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Alliance for Excellent Education. Boulay, B., Goodson, B., Frye, M., Blocklin, M., & Price, C. (2015). Summary of research generated by striving readers on the effectiveness of interventions for struggling adolescent readers (NCEE 2016–4001). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Brooks, M. D., & Rodela, K. C. (2018). Why am I in reading intervention? A dual analysis of entry and exit criteria. The High School Journal, 102(1), 72–93. Brozo, B.  G. (2009). Response to intervention or responsive instruction? Challenges and possibilities of response to intervention for adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(4), 277–281. Campbell, R.  F. (1978). Reading achievement and public policy. Journal of Reading, 21(8), 685–697. Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5(4), 69–74. Compton-Lilly, C. F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L. K. (2020). A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S185–S195. Ehren, B. J., Deshler, D. D., & Graner, P. S. (2010). Using the content literacy continuum as a framework for implementing RTI in secondary schools. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 315–322. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. Law 89–10, Apr. 11, 1965, §201. Erickson, J.  D. (2019). Primary readers’ perceptions of a camp guided reading intervention: A qualitative case study of motivation and engagement. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 35(4), 354–373. Evans, H.  M. (1972). Remedial reading in secondary schools: Still a matter of faith. Journal of Reading, 16(2), 111–114. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2015). Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read and what you can do about it. Harper & Bros. Frankel, K. K. (2016). The intersection of reading and identity in high school literacy intervention classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(1), 37–59. Frankel, K. K., Brooks, M. D., & Learned, J. E. (2021). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on reading intervention classes in secondary schools. Teachers College Record, 123(8), 31–58. Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 209–248.

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

85

Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading first impact study final report executive summary (NCEE 2009–4039). National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Gelzheiser, L. M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial, and resource room teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 24(4), 512–526. Ginsberg, R. (2020). Dueling narratives of a reader labeled as struggling: Positioning, emotion, and power within four differing English course contexts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 25(1), 1–27. Gittelman, R., & Feingold, I. (1983). Children with Reading disorders—I. Efficacy of Reading remediation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24(2), 167–191. Greenleaf, C., & Petrosino, A. (2009). Response to Slavin, Cheung, Groff, and Lake (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-­ evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 349–354. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2009). A comprehensive federal literacy agenda: Moving beyond inoculation approaches to literacy policy. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 476–483. Gutiérrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research in Education, 33, 212–245. Harris, A. J. (1967). Five decades of remedial reading. Invitational address presented at the International Reading Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA. Haynes, M. C., & Jenkins, J. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 161–190. Heath, S.  B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press. Herrera, S., Truckenmiller, A. J., & Foorman, B. R. (2016). Summary of 20 years of research on the effectiveness of adolescent literacy programs and practices (REL 2016–178). U.S.  Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ edlabs/regions/southeast/pdf/REL_2016178.pdf Hull, G., Rose, M., Fraser, K. L., & Castellano, M. (1991). Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composition and Communication, 42(3), 299–329. Hyde, A. A., & Moore, D. R. (1988). Reading services and the classification of students in two school districts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(4), 301–338. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. Law 101–476, Oct. 30, 1990, §618.

86 

K. K. FRANKEL

Johnston, P. H. (2011). Response to intervention in literacy: Problems and possibilities. The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511–534. Johnston, P., & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R.  Barr, M.  L. Kamil, P.  B. Mosenthal, & P.  D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (pp. 984–1012). Lawrence Erlbaum. Johnston, P., Allington, R., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85(4), 465–477. Kamil, M.  L., Borman, G.  D., Dole, J., Kral, C.  C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE #2008–4027). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. Learned, J. E. (2016). “The behavior kids”: Examining the conflation of youth reading difficulty and behavior problem positioning among school institutional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1271–1309. Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 111–136. Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (2000). Re/mediating adolescent literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 396–398. Masterson, J. E. (2020). Reading in “purgatory”: Tactical literacies in a remedial reading class. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 91–109. https://doi. org/10.1002/rrq.373 McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R.  L. (1991). The gridlock of low reading achievement: Perspectives on practice and policy. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 20–30. Milner, H. R., IV. (2020). Disrupting racism and whiteness in researching a science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S249–S253. Mullin, S.  P., & Summers, A.  A. (1983). Is more better? The effectiveness of spending on compensatory education. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(5), 339–347. National Council of Teachers of English. (2007). Adolescent literacy: A policy research brief. Retrieved from https://cdn.ncte.org/nctefiles/resources/positions/chron0907researchbrief.pdf. Reed, D. K., Cummings, K. D., Schaper, A., & Biancarosa, G. (2014). Assessment fidelity in reading intervention research: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 275–321. Reynolds, D. (2021). Of research reviews and practices guides: Translating rapidly growing research on adolescent literacy into updated practice recommendations. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 401–414. https://doi. org/10.1002/rrq.314

3  REMEDIAL READING PROGRAMS: IDENTIFICATION, INSTRUCTION… 

87

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Choo, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 756–800. Shanahan, T. (2014). Educational policy and literacy instruction: Worlds apart? The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 7–12. Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. U.S.  Department of Education. (2016). Using evidence to strengthen education investments. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/ guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 211–225. Walp, T.  P., & Walmsley, S.  A. (1989). Instructional and philosophical congruence: Neglected aspects of coordination. The Reading Teacher, 42(6), 364–368. What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Standards handbook, version 4.0. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/ wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf Willis, A. I. (2019). Race, response to intervention, and reading research. Journal of Literacy Research, 51(4), 394–419.

CHAPTER 4

Early Reading Instruction: Politics and Myths About Materials and Methods Natalia Ward, Nora Vines, and Rachael Gabriel

Over fifty years ago, Chall (1967) stated, “At a time when literacy is recognized as the key factor in the attack on poverty, how to give children the right start is more than an academic question” (p. 2). The questions she sought to answer close to six decades ago are once again at the center of the ongoing great debate over how best to prepare young children for reading success. Early reading development may be the most vital process for lifelong, joyful engagement in literacy as well as for continued academic success and achievement (Barnett, 2002; Snow et al., 1998). What is early reading instruction and why has it been so important for policy, N. Ward (*) East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] N. Vines University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Gabriel Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_4

89

90 

N. WARD ET AL.

research, and classroom practice in the United States? Over time literacy research established key essential components of early literacy instruction necessary for developing readers and writers (Reutzel, 2015). Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000), as well as the additional elements of early literacy, such as oral language, concepts about print, letter-name knowledge, and writing (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008) all have been consistently linked to literacy development. Yet, while the components have been established and largely agreed upon, the debates regarding the sequence of instruction and what is developmentally appropriate at which ages persist. While “[i]t is true that the field of reading education, notorious for ignoring its history, reengages in methodological warfare at least once per decade” (Morris, 2014, p.  267), the most recent round of the reading wars has grown in scope to include private companies, textbook publishers, educational podcasters, edu-philanthropists, and legislators. At the time of this writing, yet another shift toward more tightly controlled curricula and approaches to reading instruction in early grades is sweeping across the nation. A number of states passed bills and policies that require schools to adopt “high-quality instructional materials” (HQIM)—a new shorthand for textbooks or basal readers with tightly scripted teacher’s editions and student workbooks. These curricula are often expected to be taught with fidelity, meaning moving through the prescriptive lessons and activities in a lock-step manner. The aim of this chapter is to unpack the current state of affairs in early literacy policy, research, and practice, and to provide historical backdrops for some of the most pervasive trends. We organize this chapter by first discussing the policies concerned with literacy instruction in the United States. Then, we dive into the research and key association statements regarding literacy development, assessment, and instructional practices. Finally, we connect the policy and practice as we look forward into the future of literacy assessment and instruction designed for modern classrooms. The questions driving the chapter are thus: (a) what is the purpose of early literacy instruction in policy, research, and practice? and (b) what happens when policy dictates what classroom teachers can do to support all literacy learners in their classrooms? We organize the chapter according to the legislation concerned with early literacy instruction, starting with brief overviews of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965) and its iterations. We then

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

91

focus on President George W.  Bush’s reauthorization of ESEA as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which ushered in the still-pervasive era of accountability via mandatory standardized testing. Finally, we discuss the recent reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (2015) and its implications for children and their teachers. Throughout the chapter we provide examples to illustrate some of the pervasive themes that have been dominating the field of early literacy education, in terms of both research that is being sanctioned and policies that guide classroom practice.

Early Literacy Policies Across Time Federal policy had little to say about the nature of early literacy instruction for nearly 200 years. The first education legislation was focused on land grants to fund public universities. Similarly, after World War II, the 1944 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, now known as the GI Bill, was aimed at creating more opportunities for veterans to attend college. Even with its focus on higher education, the main mechanism of the law was to provide funding for returning servicemen to be (re)trained for the jobs of a new America. There was no major federal education legislation for more than a decade until the enactment of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958. This time, in response to the threats and impacts of the Cold War, the government created a set of loans for higher education. Together with the GI Bill, these laws had the impact of nearly doubling the college population in the United States over twenty years. The NDEA was focused primarily on loans for the study of science, math, and foreign languages at colleges and universities, which is the first hint of legislation aimed at a particular area of study. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was a major departure from past policy and set the tone for federal policy in K–12 settings for decades to come. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965): Funding Reading Education to Fight Poverty By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived children [...] I believe deeply no law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America. (Johnson, 1965)

92 

N. WARD ET AL.

Framed within the prevalent medical metaphor of teaching reading as diagnosis and remediation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, focused attention on the large achievement gap in reading, writing, and mathematics between children from low-income communities and their suburban counterparts (Alexander & Fox, 2004; Jeffrey, 1978). Committed to the ideals of the “American dream,” Johnson argued that “in the fight against poverty it was imperative to “strike away the chains of ignorance” and ensure that all children “have the best education that this Nation can provide”” (Casalaspi, 2017, p. 254). Framed as the most essential lever in his “war on poverty,” this initial legislation required the allocation of tremendous resources to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged students (Cascio & Reber, 2013, p. 68). Specifically, ESEA instituted Title I to provide compensatory programs for children from low-income communities (Jeffrey, 1978). Other funds were allocated for school libraries, preschool programs, and textbook acquisitions. While the government oversight ensured that funds were distributed and employed to provide additional services and supports to students who needed them, the details of how schools should administer these programs or how students were taught was left up to the local schools and state stakeholders. This “hands-off approach” encapsulated in the language of the ESEA ensured that “the federal government could not dictate curricula of schools or any particular subject matter” (Gamso et  al., 2015, p. 2). The document read: Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction. (ESEA, 1965, p. 155)

Given the local control of curriculum and assessment, schools and districts varied a great deal in how they managed literacy instruction in early grades. In addition to a variety of available textbooks at the time, the approaches to teaching children to read were also markedly different. On the one side of the argument, scholars and practitioners sided with the “look-and-say” method, which can be traced to German educator Friedrich Gedike. Gedike in 1791 argued that “teaching should follow nature” and “reading instruction [...] should go from the whole—that is,

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

93

the word—to its parts—the letters” (Flesch, 1981, p. 15). Becoming the predecessors of the whole language approach to reading instruction, the “look-and-say” method dominated classrooms with the Dick and Jane series published by Scott Foresman being a favored text for early reading instruction. Other reading scholars and practitioners advocated for the importance of teaching children the mechanics of English, arguing that systematic phonics instruction helps young children “get off to a faster start in reading” so that they “can more quickly go about the job of “reading to learn” ” (Dykstra, 1974, p. 397). These dichotomous approaches to reading instruction were visible in the reading research literature and guidance to teachers of the time (Chall, 1967), as well as the reading textbooks that were published and adopted by schools (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2000). With the influx of funds in support of adopting reading textbooks, “the controlled-vocabulary basal reader dominated the era from 1930 to the late 1980s. Directed reading emerged as the dominant instructional activity; seatwork, using the ubiquitous workbook, became another” (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2000, p.  139). Books like The New Fun with Dick and Jane (Gray, 1951) were in some schools replaced with “controlled vocabulary readers and synthetic phonics drill and practice” as in the Lippincott Basic Reading Program, Reading with Phonics, and Phonetic Keys to Reading (Chall, 1967) (cited in Alexander & Fox, 2004, p. 34). Overall, the postwar United States was primed for innovations and changes in reading research and practice, given the importance of global competition ignited by Sputnik and the increasing number of school-aged children (Alexander & Fox, 2004). Thus, ESEA (1965) was significant in that it signified a political shift which established “a pattern of federal involvement” in public education that “continues to have an enormous impact on school funding and policy” (Casalaspi, 2017, p. 247). This initial authorization, while perhaps the most lenient in terms of guidance for schools and districts, nonetheless served as a catalyst for nationwide reconsideration of how reading is taught and which materials are most effective. Most importantly, ESEA “institutionalized reading teachers into the American educational workforce” under the premise that “adding specially trained reading teachers to schools with many disadvantaged children would have the effect of improving the quality of classroom reading in those schools” (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2000, p.  140). This period was also marked by the establishment of the National Assessment

94 

N. WARD ET AL.

of Educational Progress (NAEP), which was charged with tracking student achievement in reading. The policy agenda set by ESEA in 1965 coupled with the assessment focus on reading visible in NAEP set the stage for the subsequent reauthorizations of ESEA and the changes to the regulations and funding U.S. schools experienced throughout the decades. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1981 and 1994): Educational Excellence and Standards-Based Reform America can do better. [...] But better education doesn’t mean a bigger Department of Education. In fact, that Department should be abolished. Instead, we must do a better job teaching the basics, insisting on discipline and results, encouraging competition and, above all, remembering that education does not begin with Washington officials or even State and local officials. It begins in the home, where it is the right and responsibility of every American. [...] We’re encouraging corporations, community organizations, and neighborhood groups across the country to adopt schools and help them meet their education needs with funds, equipment, and personnel. (Reagan, 1983)

ESEA has been reauthorized every five years since its enactment in 1965. With these reauthorizations by various administrations have come shifts in funding regulations. Reagan’s reauthorization (1981), the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA), shifted Title I regulations away from federal to more state and local control. The ECIA was also the first reauthorization to consider bilingual students with Titles II and IV. ESEA was once again reauthorized in 1994 as the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). This iteration overhauled Title I with the addition of academic standards for both math and reading/English language arts, reduced the poverty rate requirement to 50%, and gave even more funding control to the school/local level. This shift was prompted by the growing body of evidence demonstrating that these compensatory programs did not live up to their promise in supporting students’ reading growth (Allington, 1984; Cooley, 1981). Contrary to its aims, these programs were found to result in curriculum fragmentation, stigmatization of students identified as needing support, and a dearth of opportunities to develop thinking processes of reading comprehension (Adams, 1990; Allington & Johnston, 1986). Furthermore, the 1994 reauthorization was heavily influenced by several national reports that were authorized and

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

95

published at that time. Specifically, A Nation at Risk (1983) and Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985).  Nation at Risk (1983) A A report produced by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) to examine the quality of education in the United States argued that “the educational foundations” of American society were “being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity” that threatened the future of the United States (p. 13). The authors of the report proposed that as the school curricula had become diluted and were without a central purpose, it was imperative to publish textbooks that challenged students and to establish proficiency criteria for English, math, science, social studies, and foreign language. The authors recommended that “schools, colleges, and universities adopt more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance and student conduct” (p. 35). This report is widely considered to mark the starting point of the Excellence Movement in education. Interestingly, the NCEE did not include any educational researchers, though it did include a handful of educators. Specifically, the 18-member commission, created by Congress and appointed by the Secretary of Education, included one high school teacher, two principals, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, a historian, four presidents of universities, and a retired governor (U.S.  Department of Education, n.d.). Though not written by businessmen nor researchers, the report took an alarmist approach to framing the problem of low test scores, high teacher turnover, and low teacher pay as one of expectations for mediocrity, without considering the changing demographics of the student populations across the country, particularly in city schools. The years from 1971 to 1984 showed declining enrollment annually as the last of the postwar “baby boom” of the 1940s and 1950s graduated (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). During the same period, the percentage of students identified as needing special education services increased. Before the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, it is estimated that 80% of students with disabilities were excluded from public schools. In 1971, approximately 1.8 million children were excluded because of disabilities. By the 2018–2019 school years, more than 7.5 million children with disabilities would be enrolled in public schools, 64% of them in general education settings (U.S. Department

96 

N. WARD ET AL.

of Education, 2020). Moreover, the major sending regions of immigrants to the United States shifted in the early 1970s from Western Europe to Latin America and Asia (Martin, 2014). Thus the demographics of schools were different from the elite white male leadership of the Commission and in some ways opposite to the mostly segregated, mostly Western European continuously growing populations of the past twenty years. These shifts were framed as problematic for economic competitiveness based on data that showed decline in achievement in most areas. However, as is often true with white papers, the results were not peer reviewed, nor were they assessed after publication until long after the report had its impact. In 1990, Sandia labs was commissioned to reanalyze the SAT test scores referenced in the 1985 report. They discovered contradictory data. Known as “Simpson’s Paradox” in statistics, though the average of scores declined, the scores of individual subgroups actually increased in scores over the same time period. These findings may suggest a period of transition, not of overwhelming decline. Still, the framing of education from an economic and business perspective pervasive in A Nation at Risk was also reflected in Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985), a report that aimed to provide a synthesis of the existing knowledge on reading development and instruction and to provide guidance to educational decision makers.  ecoming a Nation of Readers (1985) B Becoming a Nation of Readers report was published under the patronage of the National Academy of Education’s Commission on Education and Public Policy, with the sponsorship of the National Institute of Education. These are primarily research organizations, and their publications show some of the complexity present in the field when it comes to beginning reading instruction. The report echoed the rising concern over the reading achievement of the American population and the need for federal involvement established in A Nation at Risk (1983) and the altered achievement proficiency levels established by NAEP (Rothman, 1995). A subsequent analysis of metaphors in the Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985) reported that the study portrayed the reading process as the journey, reading instruction as business, and reading problems as a disease (Bloome et al., 1988). Ultimately, while the report highlighted the importance of comprehension as a meaning-­making process between the text and the reader and reported that “data on the long-term effects of phonics instruction are scanty,” it nonetheless took a “phonics first, comprehension second” approach to reading

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

97

development (p. 37). This contradiction may be faithful to the literature’s bifurcation, but the recommendations were not. The report also argued that the basal readers play a critical role in reading instruction given that “a small number of basal reading programs have a strong influence on how American children are taught to read and what American children read” (p. 36). The argument continued that “a number of reading programs, including ones not known for providing intensive phonics, try to teach too many letter-sound relationships and phonics instruction drags out over too many years” (p.  38) and called for efforts to improve instructional materials available to teachers. In 1988 several of the authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers wrote a follow-up, critical examination of several issues (motivation and reading, comprehension instruction, and emergent literacy). While the authors of the report (Scott et al., 1988) referred to Teale’s (1986) recognition that the lack of attention to phonics instruction in emergent literacy was due to “fear that attention to them will only increase the tendency toward isolated skills and drills on sounds, letters, and words in early literacy programs” (p. 36), the authors also emphasized the need for research which, “which integrates the best of programs which emphasize phonics and programs which emphasize whole language or emergent literacy concepts” (p. 12, emphasis added). However, the combination of Adams’s (1990) Beginning to Read, low 1994 NAEP scores, and subsequent white papers (e.g., NICHD) fanned the flames of the reading wars as programs shifted to include explicit phonics instruction for all early literacy learners.  reventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998) P Following the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, the National Academy of Sciences, in response to a request by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, established a committee focused on examining the prevention of reading difficulties. Because “it is still difficult to predict precisely which young children will have difficulty learning to read” (Snow et al., 1998, p. 16), this committee focused specifically on young children who may be at risk for reading difficulties providing focused recommendations for both practice and research. The authors of the report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998), open the recommendations section as follows: On the assumption that understanding can move public discussion beyond the polemics of the past, we have made it an important goal of this report to

98 

N. WARD ET AL.

make the complexities known: many factors that correlate with reading fail to explain it; many experiences contribute to reading development without being prerequisite to it; and although there are many prerequisites, none by itself appears to be sufficient. (p. 314)

The committee (1998) described “adequate initial reading instruction” as that which focuses on making meaning from printed text, developing phonological awareness and orthographic knowledge, and providing opportunities for children to read and write often. Moving beyond this “initial level” requires alphabetic principle knowledge, practice reading a wide variety of texts for varying purposes with fluency, and metacognitive strategies for both monitoring comprehension and correcting when necessary. The authors (1998) noted that, “Effective instruction includes artful teaching that transcends—and often makes up for—the constraints and limitations of specific instructional programs” (p. 314). These recommendations, consistent with emerging research trends on “enacted curriculum,” emphasized the importance of understanding instructional materials and curricula not only as written but instead as enacted through joint construction by teachers and their students in their particular contexts (Ball & Cohen, 1996, p.  7). Overall, this time period was marked by a growing understanding of reading development as a complex process and, thus, teaching reading as a difficult endeavor. Researchers gained valuable insight into what teachers and book publishers could do to support reading instruction in the classroom. Teachers began to use trade books and engaging materials to teach; that is, given less oversight and governmental control of how literacy was taught, this was a time of teacher autonomy regarding literacy instructional materials. In the meantime, the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) work was under way, and the age of accountability was knocking on the schoolhouse door.  ational Reading Panel Report (2000) and Put Reading First (2001) N In 1997, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development appointed a panel of experts to investigate the body of research that existed in reading at that time. Known as the National Reading Panel, the group produced their final summary report in 1999, with a subsequent release of a longer version “Reports of the Subgroups.” The report received a lot of attention and continues to influence the teaching of reading today. Based on the findings of thirty-eight studies examining the role of phonics on reading achievement, the panel concluded that focusing on code-related

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

99

skills in early grades, kindergarten, and first grade had a positive impact on students’ reading development. The report, however, complicated the role of phonics instruction and cautioned against overgeneralizing these findings across grades and settings, given that long-term impact was not examined and the comparisons of methods of instruction (e.g., phonics vs. balanced literacy or whole language) were not made: Phonics should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached. It is important to evaluate children’s reading competence in many ways, not only by their phonics skills but also by their interest in books and their ability to understand information that is read to them. By emphasizing all of the processes that contribute to growth in reading, teachers will have the best chance of making every child a reader. (NRP Reports of the Subgroups, 1999, p. 96)

The report pointed out the paucity of research examining the role of phonics instruction beyond first grade, the interaction of using fixed scripted phonics curricula and teacher professionalism, the impact of overreliance on phonics, and students’ motivation and engagement in reading. Yet, the nuance produced in the minority report was largely lost in the outward-facing abbreviated summary widely shared with educators and policy-makers. This government-funded publication presented as a summary of the NRP Report—Put Reading First (National Institute for Literacy, 2001)—simplified and misconstrued many of the findings described in the report (Yatvin, 2003). A number of critics of the NRP Report emerged discussing the lack of generalizability of results given the small sample sizes of the studies reviewed, and the small total number of children involved, as well as the contradictions found between the widely circulated “Summary” and the longer “Reports of the Subgroups” of the NRP findings (Garan, 2001). Despite the controversy, the “Put Reading First” summary created a stir in the educational community and to this day remains the most influential and most often discussed “nonnegotiable” of literacy. The consequences of this document reverberate throughout the history of literacy education and have a direct impact on what children experience in their classrooms despite the loud outcries by the research community and even writers of the NRP Report itself. Yatvin (2003) wrote:

100 

N. WARD ET AL.

I couldn’t predict how many false conclusions, misinterpretations of data, and simplistic judgments would be made by careless readers. I had no idea how far policymakers, bureaucrats, and special-interest groups would go in distorting the truth to advance political agendas. (para 2)

Examining research related to the most contested topic in the report, phonics, reveals that literacy research throughout decades generally confirmed that the ability to recognize letters of the alphabet and the ability to discriminate sounds in words (phonemic awareness) are the best predictor of later reading achievement (Bond & Dykstra, 1967) and that phonics can bring some positive value in early literacy development (Morrone, 1958; Tiffin & McKinnis, 1940). At the same time, a recent meta-analysis examining how phonics compares to other kinds of instructional interventions, for example, phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension interventions, on measures of reading, reading comprehension, and spelling, demonstrated that phonics had the lowest long-term outcomes (Suggate, 2016). The authors additionally concluded that “phonemic awareness interventions appeared better than phonics” and comprehension interventions “appeared particularly effective” especially in grade 3 and beyond (p. 90). Furthermore, subsequent reanalyses of studies included as part of the NRP Report, augmented with studies of non-systematic phonics instructional methods (e.g., balanced literacy), revealed no evidence in favor of phonics instructions as compared to other methods of teaching reading (Camilli et al., 2006). Researchers also have long argued the importance of integrating code-based skills instruction into meaningful reading and writing activities in the classroom and that no one approach to literacy instruction is inherently superior to others (Bond & Dykstra, 1967). Today there are calls for developing alternative methods of early literacy instruction that would teach children the logic of the English language and move away from outdated, dichotomous approaches to teaching reading (Bowers, 2018). Despite these insights now and at the time of its creation, the initial report produced as the result of the National Reading Panel served as a foundation for much of the policy language and directives that came about with the enactment for the next reauthorization of ESEA—“No Child Left Behind.”

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

101

No Child Left Behind (2001): Tightened Federal Accountability in Teaching and Assessment Every school has a job to do. And that’s to teach the basics and teach them well. If we want to make sure no child is left behind, every child must learn to read. And every child must learn to add and subtract. (Applause.) So in return for federal dollars, we are asking states to design accountability systems to show parents and teachers whether or not children can read and write and add and subtract in grades three through eight. The fundamental principle of this bill is that every child can learn, we expect every child to learn, and you must show us whether or not every child is learning. (Bush (2002) as cited in Strauss (2015))

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), a reworking of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001–2002. Its goal was for all children to be reading at grade level by the end of third grade (see Chap. 2 for a discussion of the significance of this cut point). NCLB required that students meet proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments (NCLB, 2001). A goal of NCLB and the subsequent Reading First (2002) grant program was to support states in providing high-quality literacy instruction with the hope of reducing special education referrals and identification. Reading First awarded grants to states, which in turn awarded subgrants to schools, mainly those determined to be high poverty. The grant money was to be used for scientifically based reading instruction programs and diagnostic assessments for students in kindergarten through third grade. These recommendations stemmed largely from Put Reading First (2001), a report funded by the National Institute for Literacy, a federal agency, and developed by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), a multi-institution research group. The report claimed among other things that “[s]ystematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective than non-systematic or no phonics instruction” (p. 11) and “[n]o research evidence is available currently to confirm that instructional time spent on silent, independent reading with minimal guidance and feedback improves reading fluency and overall reading achievement” (p. 22). This guidance explicitly informed the interventions recommended to schools that failed to make adequate yearly progress. The standardization and accountability movement that grew out of NCLB steadily led to standardization of grade-level expectations from

102 

N. WARD ET AL.

stakeholders at the state level. Along with these standardized expectations also came expectations for children in all subgroups to rapidly increase achievement. Underpinned by the assumption that increased testing and associated measures to punish or reward schools for their performance on the sanctioned tests of reading and math would lead to higher reading achievement, NCLB had a significantly negative impact on schools (Allington, 2013; Cummins, 2007). The testing began to dictate what was taught, and as a result, the curriculum began to become overly narrow, excluding opportunities for integrated curricula, and authentic and joyful engagement with literacy (Cummins, 2007). Furthermore, with these expectations came the search for the “silver bullet,” the tool, strategy, or program that would be effective for every literacy learner. These programs have become increasingly “teacher proofed” and scripted (NAEYC, 2009, p. 5). To the detriment of the children it aimed to support, NCLB stripped teachers of their “autonomy and professional identity” (Dennis, 2017, p. 395). The NCLB era ushered shifts in professional development in early literacy toward “implementation with fidelity rather than building teacher capacity as adaptive decision makers with deep knowledge of literacy teaching and learning” (Dennis, 2017, p. 396). The NCLB era, perhaps more than any other time period in American educational history, was marked by the tight control and punitive accountability measures that established a clear roadmap toward measurable outcomes and scripted programs as markers of success in early literacy instruction. It paved the way for the next wave of renewed interest in high academic standards and data collection to quantify teacher effectiveness and student literacy growth. Race to the Top (2009) and Common Core (2010): Teacher Effectiveness and Challenging Texts Race to the Top (RTTT; Department of Education, 2009) has greatly influenced how children in the United States are taught to read and how they are assessed in grades kindergarten through third. Race to the Top (RTTT) was a federal grant program housed within President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This comprehensive education reform used six areas to evaluate which states would receive funding, two of which were Standards and Assessments and Data Systems to Support Instruction. In order to meet requirements for Standards and Assessments, states had to “adopt standards and

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

103

assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy” (Department of Education, 2009, p.  7). In order to meet requirements for Data Systems to Support Instruction, states were required to “build data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction” (Department of Education, 2009, p. 8). To satisfy the Standards and Assessments requirements, many states quickly adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Authors of the CCSS posited, based on the work of Chall (1977) and Hayes and colleagues (1996), that school reading materials had decreased in rigor over the past decades (CCSS/ELA, Appendix A). This perceived decrease in rigor was especially alarming given the framing of effective literacy instruction as crucial to economic success and the U.S. global competitiveness. The language from many white papers reflects this framing; for example, McShane (2005) writing for the National Institute for Literacy, “Reading provides access to other skills and knowledge, facilitates life-long learning, and opens doors to opportunity” (p. viii, emphasis added). Even the International Reading Association  (IRA) (2008), in a statement to President Barack Obama, highlighted, “the critical importance of effective literacy education as a key to keeping the nation productive and competitive in today’s rapidly changing global economy” (p. 1). The CCSS were written to increase rigor and standardize (moving toward national) standards for English Language Arts and Math. There was much public debate and pushback regarding the appropriateness of these new standards, especially in the early grades (K-2). While many states adopted CCSS to meet requirements for RTTT funding, in recent years, particularly after the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, many of the early adopters of CCSS have reverted back to state-level academic standards. This move away from CCSS was prompted by the flexibility in which standards are adopted provided by President Obama’s reauthorization of ESEA, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). However, the impact of the CCSS still persists, especially the emphasis on increased text complexity. Hiebert and Mesmer (2013) describe three assumptions which led to the emphasis on text complexity in the CCSS. Those assumptions are: 1. Many current high school graduates are not prepared to read the texts of college and the workplace. 2. K–12 texts have decreased in complexity.

104 

N. WARD ET AL.

3. Increasing the complexity of texts from the primary grades onward can close the gap between the levels of texts in high school and college (pp. 46–48). In addition to the focus on increasing text complexity and supporting children in engaging with more difficult texts, the CCSS also focused on increasing critical thinking skills as well as, or perhaps through, the use of informational texts. While these shifts from matching readers to texts (e.g., leveled texts) were meant to give all literacy learners access to “grade-­ level texts”, some have cautioned that, “subjecting students to constant struggle with texts at the edges of their capabilities may affect their motivation to read” (Reynolds & Goodwin, 2016, p. 1). These shifts toward increased rigor and complexity in elementary reading classrooms were also reflected in the updated definition of what is considered developmentally appropriate practice in early literacy. The original position statement on developmentally appropriate practice published by the National Association for the Educators of Young Children (NAEYC) in 1987 deemed such common early literacy practice as singing the alphabet song and holding a pencil to write inappropriate. After teaming up with the International Reading Association and running in parallel with the NRP Report, the revised statement included the importance of supporting such skills as phonemic awareness and spelling in early grades as critical for future literacy success (NAEYC/IRA, 1998). And in 2009, NAEYC highlighted the role of teachers’ intentionality, as well as pursuing challenging instructional goals: The core of developmentally appropriate practice lies in this intentionality, in the knowledge that practitioners consider when they are making decisions, and in their always aiming for goals that are both challenging and achievable for children. (NAEYC, 2009, p. 9)

Despite the government and private interest agenda emphasizing the rigor and complexity of texts in the classroom, reading researchers maintained the common sense, holistic approach to what teachers need to know and do in the classroom to support their students in literacy. For example, Morris (2014) argued that the goals for effective teachers are as follows:

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

105

1. The teacher will possess a coherent theory of developmental reading process, […] understand how specific knowledge or skill areas (e.g. word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) unfold and interrelate in reading acquisition. 2. The teacher will be skillful in assessing where a student is along a continuum of reading development. 3. The teacher will have mastery of a basic set of instructional methods and be able to selectively apply specific methods to meet the reading needs of individual students. 4. The teacher will be a “reflective practitioner” who plans carefully but also is capable of making reasoned, “on the run” adjustments to facilitate the student’s learning. (p. 267) These goals are wildly different from the general expectation that “highly effective” teachers under NCLB are those who hold a bachelor’s degree in their subject and state teaching certification. Every Student Succeeds Act (2015): Comprehensive Literacy Instruction and Prescriptive Reforms This is an early Christmas present. After more than 10 years, members of Congress from both parties have come together to revise our national education law. A Christmas miracle: A bipartisan bill signing right here. [...] Today, I’m proud to sign a law that’s going to make sure that every student is prepared to succeed in the 21st century [...] our competitive advantage depends on whether our kids are prepared to seize the opportunities for tomorrow. (Obama, 2015) NCLB “didn’t always consider the specific needs of each community” (Obama, 2015)

President Obama’s reauthorization of ESEA, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), emphasized the importance of improving student outcomes and narrowing the achievement gaps while simultaneously releasing the responsibility to individual states. This was a departure from earlier reauthorizations, but not from recent policy, which similarly incentivized specific priorities by offering additional funding through Race to the Top but allowed states to choose whether to engage the priorities and apply for funding.

106 

N. WARD ET AL.

Title II of ESSA included the “Literacy Education for All, Results for a Nation” (LEARN) Act, which aimed: to improve student academic achievement in reading and writing by providing Federal support to States to develop, revise, or update comprehensive literacy instruction plans that, when implemented, ensure high-quality instruction and effective strategies in reading and writing from early education through grade 12. (129 STAT. 1936, emphasis added)

The document goes on to define “comprehensive literacy instruction” as instruction that is developmentally appropriate, systematic, and intentional (see Table  4.1 for the complete definition of literacy instruction offered by ESSA). The language of policy offered a hopeful change of Table 4.1  ESSA’s definition of “comprehensive literacy instruction” (A) Includes developmentally appropriate, contextually explicit, and systematic instruction, and frequent practice, in reading and writing across content areas; (B) Includes age-appropriate, explicit, systematic, and intentional instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, and reading comprehension; (C) Includes age-appropriate, explicit instruction in writing, including opportunities for children to write with clear purposes, with critical reasoning appropriate to the topic and purpose, and with specific instruction and feedback from instructional staff; (D) Makes available and uses diverse, high-quality print materials that reflect the reading and development levels, and interests, of children; (E) Uses differentiated instructional approaches, including individual and small group instruction and discussion; (F)  Provides opportunities for children to use language with peers and adults in order to develop language skills, including developing vocabulary; (G) Includes frequent practice of reading and writing strategies; (H) Uses age-appropriate, valid, and reliable screening assessments, diagnostic assessments, formative assessment processes, and summative assessments to identify a child’s learning needs, to inform instruction, and to monitor the child’s progress and the effects of instruction; (I) Uses strategies to enhance children’s motivation to read and write and children’s engagement in self-directed learning; (J) Incorporates the principles of universal design for learning; (K) Depends on teachers’ collaboration in planning, instruction, and assessing a child’s progress and on continuous professional learning; and (L) Links literacy instruction to the challenging State academic standards, including the ability to navigate, understand, and write about, complex print and digital subject matter. (129 STAT. 1936-1937).

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

107

rhetoric from the NCLB and Reading First era to usher in flexibility for teachers to use “strategies to enhance children’s motivation to read and write”; to use “diverse, high-quality print materials that reflect the reading and development levels, and interests, of children”; and to engage in “collaboration in planning” and “continuous professional learning” (129 STAT. 1936–1937). Resembling some of the sentiments visible in ESEA (1965), ESSA (2015) explicitly stated that the federal government is not authorized to “mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s [...] instructional content or materials, curriculum, program of instruction, academic standards, or academic assessments” (129 STAT. 1954). This release of control to the individual states and local education agencies reopened a forum for local decision making related to early literacy instruction. Individual states began to engage in reignited discussions related to the best approach to reading instruction. These discussions were captured and informed by an increase in media attention and social media focus on early reading instruction. A series of high-profile and well-publicized media stories were built on a long-standing tradition of depicting reading education and outcomes as a public crisis in America and readily proposed a “narrow and settled solution” (MacPhee et al., 2021, p. S145). Specifically, a series of publications by Emily Hanford (2018) argued that “[t]he prevailing approaches to reading instruction in American schools are inconsistent with basic things scientists have discovered about how children learn to read” (para. 8). According to Hanford’s reporting, which skillfully weaved in interviews with teachers, parents, and researchers with tidbits of selected research, it is the explicit phonics instruction in early grades that is the panacea for reading difficulties of American children. Arguing for the need to adhere to the “science of reading” (SOR)—a term that has been used in the research community for decades but has in recent years been adopted by advocacy groups, educators, and researchers dedicated to the importance of phonics instruction in primary grades—the news reporting by Hanford and others nonetheless produced a “reductionist framing of science” that ignored decades of literacy research and insight from literacy practitioners (Hoffman et  al., 2020, p. S258). A recent critical metaphor analysis of media portrayals of “science of reading” revealed that reading education is systematically framed in the media as “war” and “criminal justice system,” which failed students and promoted inequity (MacPhee et  al., 2021). The authors summarize their interpretation of the framing the SOR movement delivers as follows:

108 

N. WARD ET AL.

Educators are deemed morally deficient and scientifically negligent and are thus in need of discipline in the form of phonics mandates. However, because the state has failed to enforce justice, the public (e.g., parents, the media), faced with moral panic, must take matters into their own hands, placing the SOR movement on the right side of justice. (MacPhee et  al., 2021, p. S150)

The rhetorical battlefield of SOR emphasizing equity, moral impetus, and justice in both phonics and knowledge-building publications works as a convincing argument to be yielded “to shape public policy and silence other perspectives” (Hoffman et al., 2020, p. S258). Calls for prescriptive guidance to schools in early literacy curricula and methods spread like wildfire across the nation and were clearly visible in the new conservative agenda in education. For example, one report stressed that “[i]f there is one area in which conservatives should overcome their lingering aversion to being prescriptive about curriculum and classroom practice, it is early childhood literacy” (Pondiscio, 2020, p.  1). Further, Pondiscio concluded that: A state would be within its rights to insist, for example, that early childhood teachers not just be taught the “science of reading” as a condition of licensure, but that they be trained and demonstrate competence teaching a specific curriculum. (p. 3)

The burgeoning focus on adopting specific curricula in early literacy classrooms is particularly visible today. Several curricula have become frontrunners in the selection process by emphasizing how they integrate literacy instruction with content to deliver knowledge-building necessary for student success. The importance of building knowledge in elementary grades has long been established in research (Hirsch, 2003; Neuman, 2010). Yet, the interest in this topic has been reignited by the publication of Natalie Wexler’s (2020) The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System—and How to Fix It in which she argued for the importance of shifting away from comprehension strategy instruction permeating elementary grades to a more content-oriented knowledge-building curriculum in literacy. However, the question of what knowledge is or, more importantly, whose knowledge should be included in these curricula is far from being apolitical, settled, or fully represented

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

109

by a new cadre of publishers with Silicon Valley boards, CEOs, and investors (Hensley-Clansey, 2014). As an example, in the state of Tennessee, school districts were mandated to adopt both a knowledge-building curriculum and a phonics curriculum from a state-approved list. The state required districts to post their foundational literacy plans online for parents and other stakeholders to review and initiated a professional development program—both online and in person—to provide teachers and school leaders with an understanding of how to teach foundational skills at early grades. All educators are currently required to complete the professional development and, subsequently, take and pass a test of their knowledge of phonics. This strategy of offering a small “menu” of state-approved options and offering state-­ created professional development is common across states. It ensures that all state contracts funnel to a small number of vendors who have no accountability for the educational outcomes of schools that use their materials. Likewise, it ensures that all teachers have access to a single message about the teaching of reading, without any evidence that this or any other specific set of learning experiences can close gaps in or raise student achievement. In addition to reignited debates about how to teach early literacy, the consideration of cultural and linguistic relevance emerged as a key factor in which materials and methods are employed in classrooms. The fervent call for a shift toward culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris & Alim, 2017) that build on students’ strengths in current literacy research is especially visible in the 2021 definition of developmentally appropriate practices. NAEYC defined DAP as “methods that promote each child’s optimal development and learning through a strengths-based, play-based approach to joyful, engaged learning” and “must also be culturally, linguistically, and ability appropriate for each child” (NAEYC, 2020, p. 5). Nonetheless, the NAEYC statement, ESSA’s definition of comprehensive literacy instruction, and a glimpse into early grades’ classrooms reveal an intriguing tension between the urgent impetus to make instruction more culturally sustaining while at the same time adhering to increasingly prescriptive guidance about what to teach, when, and how. The tensions and contradictions currently permeating the educational landscape implicate policy, research, social media, edu-reporting, and grassroots advocacy groups in crafting visions of early reading instruction. While at times contentious, these contradictions can nonetheless serve as important points of discussion and catalysts that can propel educational decision making forward.

110 

N. WARD ET AL.

Looking into the Future Although we could go back as far as Edmond Burke Huey’s 1908 work, for the purposes of this chapter we will instead encourage the reader to visit it and consider how much has (or hasn’t) changed in the century plus since publication. Since then, a large body of research has been generated, progressing through a series of cycles. The result, as Chall (1983) described, is that “for almost every statement on literacy, one can find another that directly opposes it, from the status of literacy—what it is today and whether it is getting better or worse, to how and why we got there” (p. 3). A way to reconcile these complex contradictions is to recognize that “research on literacy seems to be ready for a better balancing of the theoretical with the problem oriented” (Chall, 1983, p. 8). This balance simply cannot be achieved without the consideration of how policy and research frame and guide practice in early literacy instruction over time. Since its inception in 1965, ESEA steadily increased the role of the federal government in public education, with its apotheosis reached during the reign of NCLB with its tight accountability measures and prescriptive testing mandates (see Table  4.2 for timeline of ESEA evolution). While ESSA seems to return to the original ESEA, to some degree, which prohibited government mandates and allowed more state control, local decision making has become heavily influenced and tightly controlled by national organizations, corporate interests, educational media influencers, Table 4.2  Evolution of Elementary and Secondary Education Act

1965–1980: Promoting Equity in Access to Educational Opportunities 1981–1988: The Push for Educational Excellence 1989–1992: The Rise of Standards-­ Based Reform 1993–2000: Federal Focus on Standards-Based Reform 2001–2008: Test-Based Accountability 2009–2016: Competitive Grants and Federal Prescriptions Adapted from: the Hunt Institute (2016) Retrieved from: http://www.hunt-­institute. o r g / w p -­c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 6 / 0 9 / D e v e l o p m e n t -­o f -­t h e -­E l e m e n t a r y -­a n d -­ Secondary-­Education-­Act-­August-­2016.pdf

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

111

and state officials. While the enactment of Title I served as a catalyst for institutionalizing reading teachers in the United States, its ultimate legacy did not live up to its original premise, setting the stage for decades of debates of how to best teach reading and who is qualified to do so. These debates, in part, reflect division in the field that is epistemic as much as it is methodological and pedagogical. However, policy is a blunt tool for change and as such can rarely convey or encourage nuanced, contingent approaches to complex issues. The spotlight on literacy not only as a policy issue but also as a media magnet also has consequences for the public’s understanding of problem and solution frames. Perhaps because motivational frames are so clear and compelling when it comes to early literacy, diagnostic and prognostic frames are too easy to come by. As Freebody (2007) noted: The restricted breadth-of-field in the field of literacy research has been brought about partly by a fixation on method in the classroom, and, even within that narrow gaze, a fixation on the question of ‘skill- versus meaning-­ based’ approaches to method. That gaze may provide a way back, but not forward. For the most part, the mass media’s attention on literacy education both reflects and reinforces such a restrictive perspective. (Freebody, 2007, p. 66)

Policy tends to focus narrowly on the polarized and calcified opposites within what Freebody described as “a restrictive perspective.” This focus further polarizes and calcifies opposition to the point that substantive similarities are often missed or ignored out of suspicion. However, broadening the literacy research understood as having implications for policy could include research on much more than five foundational skills. If children are to both learn how to read and want to read, all stakeholders must recognize that: Although learning skills like decoding are necessary, students’ literacy development also depends on providing them with explicit information about how reading works in school and other social contexts, allowing them choice and voice in classroom activities, and helping them find relevance by connecting reading practices with the knowledge, experiences, and identities they bring to school. (Botzakis et al., 2014, pp. 225–226)

A pedagogical approach which over-emphasizes discrete skills such as phonics devoid of authentic contexts and application to real reading and

112 

N. WARD ET AL.

writing “lacks a deep embodiment in practice of students’ cultural, linguistic, and varied instructional needs” (Vaughn et al., 2020, p. 302). Aligned with NAEYC’s (2009) discussion of teachers’ intentionality and Morris’s (2014) goals for effective reading teachers, Vaughn et al. (2020) describe adaptive literacy educators as those who are culturally responsive and reflective. Curricular materials must be adapted to meet the specific needs and interests of diverse learners. Thus, policy which is supportive of adaptive teaching practices is needed in order for early literacy materials, instruction, and practice to support the acquisition and development of all early literacy learners; that is, teachers must be empowered and have the autonomy to teach the diverse children in their classrooms, not teach prescribed curricula. The future of early reading instruction must capitalize on rich insights gleaned from research and policy enactment in order to design innovative approaches suitable for the complex contextual differences among states and schools. If we are serious about supporting every learner in becoming a lifelong reader and writer, we must pursue the essentials of excellent literacy instruction recently proposed by the International Literacy Association (ILA Position Statement Children’s Rights to Excellent Literacy Instruction, 2019). Specifically, all children must have access to knowledgeable, caring, and expert literacy educators who understand the literacy development and the methods of teaching literacy suitable for individual children. All children must have access to high-quality, engaging, and culturally and linguistically sustaining materials and tasks to spark their interest in learning to read and maintain it for a lifetime. Finally, all students have the right to fair representation of their rights in literacy policies that should be purposefully designed to promote equity, collaboration, joy, and democracy.

Discussion Questions 1. Researchers “call for an end to the reading wars and recommend an agenda for instruction and research in reading acquisition that is balanced, developmentally informed, and based on a deep understanding of how language and writing systems work” (Castles et al., 2018, p. 5). What would that look like at the classroom, programmatic, and policy level?

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

113

2. If early literacy development can take a variety of trajectories depending on context and individual differences among children, how can a new generation of literacy curricula take such complexity and nuance into consideration? 3.  What role do motivation and engagement play in early literacy instruction? How can individual preferences and goals of children be incorporated into both policy and practice? 4. In Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985), we read: “Students spend up to 70% of the time allocated for reading instruction in independent practice, or “seat-work.” This is an hour per day in the average classroom. Most of this time is spent on workbooks and skill sheets. Children spend considerably more time with their workbooks than they do receiving instruction from teachers” (p. 74). How does this statement relate to the current reality of early literacy teaching and learning? What has changed in literacy instruction in primary grades since 1985? 5. “Metaphors may create realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future action” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 156). Closely examine the language of ESSA as it relates to literacy instruction, particularly attending to the definition of comprehensive literacy instruction (Table  4.1). What frames or metaphors are visible in this definition? How do they reflect early literacy instruction in your local state or district?

References Adams, M. J. (1990). Teaching thinking to Chapter 1 students. In B. I. Williams, P.  A. Richmond, & B.  J. Mason (Eds.), Designs for compensatory education: Conference proceedings and papers. Research and Evaluation Associates. Alexander, P.  A., & Fox, E. (2004). Historical perspectives on reading research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 33–59). International Reading Association. Allington, R. L. (1984). Content coverage and contextual reading in reading groups. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(1), 85–96. Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters when working with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/ TRTR.1154

114 

N. WARD ET AL.

Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (1986). The coordination among regular classroom reading programs and targeted support programs. In B.  I. Williams, P.  A. Richmond, & B.  J. Mason (Eds.), Designs for compensatory education: Conference proceedings and papers. Research and Evaluation Associates. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Looking back, looking forward: A conversation about teaching reading in the 21st century. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 136–153. Ball, D.  L., & Cohen, D.  K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—Or might be—The role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14. Barnett, W. S. (2002). Preschool education for economically disadvantaged children: Effects on reading achievement and related outcomes. In S. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (pp. 421–443). Guilford Press. Bloome, D., Cassidy, C.  M., Chapman, M., & Schaafsma, D. (1988). Reading instruction and underlying metaphors in becoming a nation of readers. Counterpoint and beyond: A response to Becoming a Nation of Readers (pp. 5–16). National Council of Teachers of English. Bond, G.  L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-­ grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 10–141. Botzakis, S., Burns, L. D., & Hall, L. A. (2014). Literacy reform & common core state standard: Recycling the autonomous model. Language Arts, 91(4), 221–233. Bowers, J. S. (2018). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. PsyArXiv. Retrieved from https://psyarxiv.com/xz4yn/ Camilli, G., Wolfe, M., & Smith, M. L. (2006). Meta-analysis and reading policy: Perspectives on teaching children to read. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 27–36. Casalaspi, D. (2017). The making of a “legislative miracle”: The elementary and secondary education act of 1965. History of Education Quarterly, 57(2), 247–277. Cascio, E. U., & Reber, S. (2013). The poverty gap in school spending following the introduction of title I. American Economic Review, 103(3), 423–427. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271 Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. McGraw-Hill. Chall, J. S. (1977). An analysis of textbooks in relation to declining SAT scores. New York College Entrance Examination Board. Chall, J.  S. (1983). Literacy: Trends and explanations. Educational Researcher, 12(9), 3–8.

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

115

Cooley, W. (1981). Effectiveness of compensatory education. Educational Leadership, 38(4), 298–301. Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07313156 Dennis, D. V. (2017). Learning from the past: What ESSA has the chance to get right. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 395–400. Dykstra, R. (1974). Phonics and beginning reading instruction. In C. C. Walcutt, J.  Lamport, & G.  McCracken (Eds.), Teaching reading: A phonic/linguistic approach to developmental reading. Macmillan. ESEA (1965) United States. (1965). Elementary and secondary education act of 1965 : H. R. 2362, 89th Cong., 1st sess., Public law 89–10. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177. (2015). Flesch, R. (1981). Why Johnny still can’t read: A new look at the scandal of our schools. The Harp. Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy education in schools: Research perspectives from the past, for the future. Australian Council for Educational Research. Gamson, D. A., McDermott, K. A., & Reed, D. S. (2015). The elementary and secondary education act at fifty: Aspirations, effects, and limitations. Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(3), 1–29. Garan, E. M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 500–506. Gray, W. S. (1951). The new fun with Dick and Jane. Scott Foresman. Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APM reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmreports. org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-­w ords-­w hy-­a merican-­k ids-­a rent-­ being-­taught-­to-­read Hayes, D. P., Wolfer, L. T., & Wolfe, M. F. (1996). Schoolbook simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-verbal scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002489 Hensley-Clansey, M. (2014, April 14). Amplify education tries to build an identity outside of news corp’s shadow. BuzzFeed News. Retrieved from https:// www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/amplify-­e ducation-­ tries-­to-­build-­an-­identity-­outside-­of-­news Hiebert, E. H., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the common core state standards: Examining its potential impact on young readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44–51. Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge of words and the world. American Educator, 27(1), 10–13. Hoffman, J. V., Hikida, M., & Sailors, M. (2020). Contesting science that silences: Amplifying equity, agency, and design research in literacy teacher preparation. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S255–S266. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/rrq.353

116 

N. WARD ET AL.

Hunt Institute (n.d.). Development of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved November 1, 2021 from http://www.hunt-institute.org/ wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Development-of-the-Elementar y-andSecondary-Education-Act-August-2016.pdf International Reading Association. (2008–2009). IRA offers policy recommendations to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama. Reading Today, 26(3). Jeffrey, J. (1978). Education for children of the poor: A study of the origins and implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Ohio State University Press. Johnson, L. B. (1965), Remarks in Johnson City, Texas, Upon signing the elementary and secondary education bill. Retrieved from the American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/241886 Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. MacPhee, D., Handsfield, L.  J., & Paugh, P. (2021). Conflict or conversation? Media portrayals of the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S145–S155. Martin, P. (2014). Trends in migration to the US. Public Radio Broadcasting. Retrieved from https://www.prb.org/resources/trends-­in-­migration-­to-­the-­u-­s/ McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for teachers. National Institute for Literacy. Morris, D. (2014). Diagnosis and correction of reading problems (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. Morrone, V. E. (1958). A critical analysis of scientific research in phonics. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh]. NAEP. (1971). Reports, bills, debate and act. [Washington]. National Association for the Education of Young Children, International Reading Association. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. A joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globallyshared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/PSREAD98.PDF National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Retrieved https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globallyshared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/PSDAP.pdf National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap/contents National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Digest of education statistics. Author. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Institute for Literacy.

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

117

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. NCLB. (2001). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002) (enacted). Neuman, S. B. (2010). Sparks fade, knowledge stays: The national early literacy panel’s report lacks staying power. American Educator, 34(3), 14–39. NRP Reports of the Subgroups. (1999). Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups (00–4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Obama, B. (2015, December 10). Remarks by the President at every student succeeds act signing ceremony. Obama White House Archives. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-­p ress-­o ffice/2015/12/10/ remarks-­president-­every-­student-­succeeds-­act-­signing-­ceremony Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press. Pondiscio, R. (2020). Focus on early literacy: Common curriculum and better teacher training. Sketching a new conservative education agenda. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED610309.pdf Reagan, R. (1983, March 12). Radio address to the nation on education. [Speech audio recording]. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. Retrieved from https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/radio-­address-­nation-­ education-­1 Reutzel, D.  R. (2015). Early literacy research: Findings primary-grade teachers will want to know. The Reading Teacher, 69(1), 14–24. https://doi. org/10.1002/trtr.1387 Reynolds, D., & Goodwin, A. (2016). Supporting students reading complex texts: Evidence for motivational scaffolding. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–16. Rothman, R. (1995). Measuring up: Standards, assessment, and school reform. Jossey-Bass. Scott, J. A., Hiebert, E. H., & Anderson, R. C. (1988). From present to future: Beyond becoming a nation of readers. Center for the Study of Reading. Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press. Strauss, V. (December 2015). Why it’s worth re-reading George W. Bush’s 2002 No Child Left Behind speech. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/09/ why-itsworth-re-reading-george-w-bushs-2002-no-child-left-behind-speech/

118 

N. WARD ET AL.

Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96. Teale, W. (1986). Emergent literacy. Reading and writing development in early childhood. In Annual review of research presented at the 36th meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Tiffin, J., & McKinnis, M. (1940). Phonic ability: Its measurement and relation to reading ability. School and Society, 51, 190–192. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program Executive Summary. Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2020). A history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ IDEA-History U.S. Department of Education. Archived Information. Members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed. gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/members.html United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform: A report to the Nation and the secretary of education. United States Department of Education. Vaughn, M., Parsons, S. A., & Massey, D. (2020). Aligning the science of Reading with adaptive teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S299–S306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.351 Wexler, N. (2020). The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s Broken Education System—And how to fix it. Avery. Yatvin, J. (2003). I told you so! The misinterpretations and misuse of the national reading.

Further Reading Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. National Institute of Education. Blevins, W. (2019). Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction. Literacy leadership brief. International Literacy Association. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-­source/where-­we-­stand/ ila-­meeting-­challenges-­early-­literacy-­phonics-­instruction.pdf Carbo, M. (1989). An evaluation of Jeanne Chall’s response to ‘Debunking the great phonics myth’. The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(2), 152–157. Chall, J. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. McGraw-Hill. Dwyer, B., Kern, D., & Williams, J. (2019). Children’s rights to excellent literacy instruction. Position statement. International Literacy Association. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-­source/where-­we-­ stand/ila-­childrens-­rights-­to-­excellent-­literacy-­instruction.pdf

4  EARLY READING INSTRUCTION: POLITICS AND MYTHS… 

119

Garan, E. M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 500–506. Krashen, S. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2), 119–123. Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press. The National Reading Panel Publications. Retrieved from https://www.nichd. nih.gov/about/org/der/branches/cdbb/nationalreadingpanelpubs

CHAPTER 5

Cumulative Disadvantage: Differential Experiences of Students with Reading Difficulties Laura Northrop

Introduction How to best define, identify, and help students with reading difficulties is a constant and persistent problem in the United States. As early as 1955, with the best-selling publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read—And What You Can Do About It by Rudolf Flesch, educators, parents, and policymakers have expressed large-scale and public concerns about how well American students are reading. Almost seven decades later, the concern over low reading achievement for U.S. students hasn’t changed at all. Most recently, it is Emily Hanford’s report Hard Words that has, once again, brought reading difficulties and how best to address these issues to the center of policy discussion. There are two main ways to view student reading achievement data when thinking about what it means to be a student with reading

L. Northrop (*) Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_5

121

122 

L. NORTHROP

difficulties. The first area of concern is a student’s overall reading achievement at a given point in time; that is, what is a student’s current reading ability, when compared to both a set of grade level standards and when compared to other students of similar age? These data, which provides a snapshot look at how well a student reads, are the scores that catch the attention of policymakers, in particular, the persistently low scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which are routinely reported in mainstream media (Green & Goldstein, 2019; Strauss, 2013, 2021). The second way to view reading achievement data is a student’s growth over time. Of particular concern here to policymakers, educators, and parents are students who exhibit reading difficulties early on, as there is a substantial body of research that shows prior achievement in reading is the strongest predictor of later literacy achievement (Chatterji, 2006; Duncan et al., 2007; Juel, 1988; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; Storch & Whitehurst, 2001, 2002; Xue & Meisels, 2004). This is the idea of cumulative disadvantage: that initial disadvantages in reading are extremely difficult to overcome (Stanovich, 1986) and that early differences in reading ability between students widen over time. More recently, state policymakers have been paying attention to measuring progress in reading, by including growth measures as part of their external accountability measures (i.e., the school report card for the state of Ohio includes grading schools on their growth rates for students). Although the way student reading achievement is measured has become more nuanced over the last seventy years, the national preoccupation and worry with how well children read has not changed very much and has persisted throughout the decades. However, the way educators, parents, and especially policymakers frame the issue—and through that, their response to the problem—has changed substantially from the 1960s to today. This chapter will explore how the issue of students with reading difficulties has been framed throughout the years and how that framing was influenced by policy.

Historical Evidence 1960s–1980s Although concerns about students with reading difficulties can be traced back to the late 1800s, with early researchers offering explanations such as

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

123

word blindness, eye problems, and emotional disturbance as causes of reading difficulties (McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008), it wasn’t until 1965 when reading difficulties were formally addressed by educational policy, with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA formally allocated federal money to specifically address reading difficulties for students who attend high-poverty schools. In addressing reading difficulties by creating Title 1 funds (formerly called Chapter 1 funds) to be used for supplemental reading instruction, ESEA framed reading difficulties as the result of poverty or “culturally disadvantaged reader” (McGill-Franzen, 1987, p. 479). The root cause of reading failure was assumed to be poverty, and the remedy was assumed to be extra instruction, provided by supplemental Title 1 teachers. In this case, the policy built off the findings of the seminal Coleman report at the time, which argued that family background mattered greatly in educational attainment (Coleman et al., 1966). At the same time ESEA was framing poverty as the cause of reading difficulties, a competing theory was emerging that reading difficulties were caused by a deficit, or problem, in the brain. This model of reading difficulties was formalized in policy by the passage of the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), which included as one of their requirements access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). In this way, policy moved the definition of reading difficulties away from “environmental deficits” and toward “neurological dysfunction” (McGill-Franzen, 1987, p. 480), viewing reading difficulties as a specific learning disability. That is, the cause of reading difficulties was no longer solely attributed to the external cause of the environment and home life of the child, but attributable to an internal cause, or specific issue in an individual. To receive intervention instruction under EHA, students must be formally diagnosed with a learning disability. One early research study exploring this reason for reading difficulties is Cromer’s (1970) research examining the difference between a deficit model, which attributed poor reading to “an absence of some function or ability” (p. 471), and a difference model, which attributed poor reading to “a mismatch between the individual’s typical mode of responding and the pattern of responding assumed necessary” (p. 471). Cromer divided participants into three groups: good readers, who performed well on a reading comprehension test; the “deficit” group, who were poor readers who had low scores on both a reading comprehension test and vocabulary test;

124 

L. NORTHROP

and the difference group, who were poor readers who had low scores on the reading comprehension test but similar vocabulary and IQ scores compared to good reader group. Each group read text presented four different ways. Cromer found that the deficit group struggled to comprehend the text no matter how the text was presented, while the difference group did well when the text was chunked into phrases that helped the students encounter the texts in meaningful units. This study provided early support for the idea that not all poor readers struggled for the same reason, as well as supporting the notion that some poor readers had difficulties cognitively processing some aspect of text. 1970s–1980s Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, ESEA and EHA both provided federal financial support to school districts to work with struggling readers. In the late 1980s, McGill-Franzen (1987) analyzed the issued caused by having two different federal policies, both with different ideological underpinnings, that provided money for reading intervention. Because ESEA and Title 1 assumed reading difficulties were due to environmental factors, while the EHA assumed reading difficulties were due to internal cognitive deficits, McGill-Franzen concluded that “children experiencing reading failure may be defined quite differently depending on which school district they attend, in which state, and what financial constraints these are operating under” (p.  487). Therefore, struggling readers who attended more affluent schools that did not receive Title 1 money only received intervention instruction in reading once diagnosed with a severe reading deficit, such as dyslexia, while struggling readers who attended less affluent schools were provided reading intervention without needing a formal diagnosis. During this same time period in the 1980s, researchers not only thought about what causes reading difficulties, but began examining what happens to struggling readers as they progressed through school. This viewpoint began to explicitly frame struggling readers in terms of cumulative disadvantage. Cumulative disadvantage in reading was formally hypothesized as the “Matthew effect” by Stanovich (1986). This theory suggests that early reading differences between good readers and struggling readers widen as time goes on. More importantly for educators, it is argued that this cycle of negative reinforcement is difficult to break.

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

125

In particular, the “Matthew effect” works through two mechanisms: (1) reciprocal relationships and (2) organism-environment correlation. Reciprocal relationships are the idea that current reading ability influences the development of reading skills; thus a child with lower initial skills is less efficient at developing later reading skills. Organism-environment correlation is the idea that students are exposed to different environments that build reading skills of differing quality. Stanovich argues that this relationship is also bidirectional, with good readers finding reading easy and enjoyable, so they read more, while struggling readers find reading difficult, so they read less. In particular, Stanovich’s theory is based on the skills of word identification and vocabulary, such that as good readers read more they continue to develop the vocabulary and knowledge necessary to read more difficult texts, while struggling readers do not. In this way, the cumulative disadvantage model combined the environmental causes favored by the ESEA policy and the individual deficit cause favored by the EHA policy. Concurrent with research that developed models explaining reading difficulties, several studies by Richard Allington examined the type of instruction struggling readers received in the schools. In his first study, Allington found that struggling readers were often provided “corrective reading instruction” (Allington, 1977, p.  57) that focused on isolated skills and did not include much actual reading time—as few as 43 words per day. A follow-up study that examined first- and second-grade classrooms in four school districts also found that struggling readers were given little connected text to read—and much less of it than typical readers. Students who were placed in the higher reading groups read, on average, 539 words of connected text, compared to only 237 words for students placed in the lower-level reading groups. These two studies were followed by a broader literature review on the instructional differences between reading groups. In addition to looking at the amount of text students read, Allington (1983) found that there were also differences in the type of instruction students received. Students in the higher-level reading groups were more likely to have lessons that used silent reading and focused on the meaning of the text. In contrast, students in the lower-level reading groups were more likely to read orally, had lessons focused on sounds and letters, and received more substantial corrective feedback focused on oral reading mistakes. Although early research into classroom instruction for struggling readers focused on classroom reading groups, later research began

126 

L. NORTHROP

systematically exploring the difference in reading instruction provided under the two federal programs, Title 1 from ESEA and remedial instruction under the EHA. Allington and McGill-Franzen (1989) explored the difference in instruction under these two programs, arguing that because each federal program defined the cause of reading difficulties in a different way, the “two instructional support programs are intended to serve different learner populations” (p.  530). Although Allington and McGillFranzen expected to find the students in each program having different issues with reading due to the perceived differences in what caused the reading issues, what they actually found was very little difference in the instructional needs of the students being served by the two different programs. However, they did find that the types of instruction received in Title 1 programs and special education programs were different, with instruction in special education programs being less intensive, with less active teaching, more seat work, and fewer overall instructional minutes than students being served by Title 1 programs. Allington and McGillFranzen hypothesized the difference in instruction as directly related to the requirements of the policies—Title 1 money was required to be used as supplemental instruction and could not replace regular classroom instruction, whereas special education funding did not have that requirement and thus students could be pulled out of class during reading instruction, causing them to miss instructional time. Although federal policy, through its requirements for how money could be spent, influenced reading intervention during this time period, so did the dominant philosophical beliefs of how reading should be taught. Researchers examining an existing and restructured Title 1 tutoring program found that the district’s existing tutoring program was largely mirrored the district’s regular curriculum, which was based on whole language instruction (Heibert et al., 1992). The restructured curriculum included reading predictable books, phonics instruction in word patterns, writing rhyming words, and journal writing, thus including a more explicit phonics component than the regular school curriculum. In this study, researchers found that students who engaged in the restructured intervention curriculum did better than students who participated in the regular intervention curriculum, suggesting that thoughtful consideration of what is taught during intervention instruction is just as important as to whom and how it is provided, and that offering students the same curriculum—just more of it—may not always be the best way to provide intervention instruction.

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

127

The period from 1965 to the late 1980s saw models that explain reading difficulties shift from one of environmental causes, to one based on individual causes, to one based on a combination of environmental and individual causes. These models of reading difficulties influenced federal policy and, through policy requirements, the way that reading intervention was provided in the schools. In particular, the students identified to participate in intervention instruction, as well as the type of intervention instruction, differed depending on whether or not the school was using Title 1 money under ESEA or serving students diagnosed with formal learning disabilities under EHA. However, by the early 1990s, big changes in both federal and state policies were looming on the horizon that would once again change the way struggling readers were defined, identified, and provided instruction. 1990s–2020s By the 1990s there was still little improvement in how well American students read, there was still widespread concern over educational failures, and no clear consensus on which, if any, of these explanations worked best. The first change in this time period was that researchers increasingly returned to cognitive models to explain reading difficulties, this time using increasingly sophisticated research techniques to examine reading growth over time. One of the first studies to use longitudinal data to explore reading trajectories of students was the Connecticut Longitudinal Study, which examined the difference between the deficit model and the developmental lag model (Francis et al., 1996). The deficit model was largely the same as when first introduced in the 1960s, hypothesizing that children struggled to read due to a skill that they never develop. In contrast, the developmental lag model hypothesized that most children do learn to read, they just do so at different rates, and eventually struggling readers will catch up to their classmates. In this study, Francis et al. examined the reading trajectories of three groups of students for nine years. The first group was reading disabled discrepant, where the students’ IQ and reading level did not seem to match. The second group was reading disabled-low achievers and included all students who scored below the 25th percentile in reading, regardless of whether there was also a discrepancy between IQ scores and reading scores. The third group was non-reading impaired students. This

128 

L. NORTHROP

longitudinal research made several important contributions to our understanding of students with reading difficulties. First, this study provided a clear understanding of how students develop in reading, with more rapid development in the early years that slows as students’ progress through school. Second, there was no difference in the reading trajectories of the reading disabled-discrepant group and the reading disabled-­ low-­ achievers group. This distinction had important implications for policy. Under guidelines of EHA, students received supplemental reading instruction only when there was a discrepancy between their reading performance and IQ level. However, with the 2004 reauthorization of the law, which was by then known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), students no longer needed to have an IQ-achievement discrepancy to be identified as learning disabled to receive supplemental instruction and instead could be identified based on response to intervention (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). This was consistent with the law’s revised purpose of providing early intervention services for children who were struggling, but not currently formally identified as needing special education support (U.S.  Department of Education, 2020). This considerably broadened the ability of schools to provide reading intervention to more students. The reauthorization of IDEA also changed the way the problem of reading difficulties was framed, from one that focused on the cause of the reading issues under ESEA and EHA, to one that focused more on providing solutions in the form of regular assessment, progress monitoring, and intervention instruction for all struggling readers, regardless of the cause of the reading difficulties. Response to Intervention (RTI) provided school districts with a model for identifying and providing reading intervention to all students, not just students who were economically disadvantaged or students who were formally diagnosed with a learning disability. The basic components of RTI included universal screening and benchmarking with assessments several times year, as well as provided three levels of instruction: tier 1, regular classroom instruction; tier 2, targeted small-group intervention; and tier 3, intensive individual intervention (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2008). In addition to expanding who was eligible for intervention instruction, during this time period, there was also a considerable shift in how and where students were provided reading intervention. Under first EHA, and then IDEA, students with disabilities were required to be placed in the least restrictive environment for their education. Initially, the majority of

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

129

students with disabilities were placed in separate classrooms, but by the early 2010s, the majority of students spent most of their day in the general education classroom (Calhoon et al., 2018). This, along with the implementation of RTI, shifted much of the responsibility for reading intervention to the classroom teacher. It also caused concerns about how well special education could serve students formally diagnosed with learning disabilities as well as students who were receiving intervention, but not formally on an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), at the same time (Calhoon et al., 2018). The use of RTI, and later multi-tier systems of support (MTSS), as a way to identify students with reading difficulties and monitor their progress was explicitly supported by the use of cognitive models for reading difficulties. While earlier research from the 1970s and 1980s focused on the types of reading instruction offered to struggling readers, and in particular reading volume, after the implementation of RTI and MTSS, cognitive models were used as a way to identify specific reading interventions. An example of this is the model and interventions recommended by Kendeou et al. (2014). In their model, reading difficulties are caused by issues with either understanding the written code (such as problems with phonological processes or decoding) or higher-level processes (such as executive function, making inferences, or attention issues). For each individual concern, Kendeou et  al. also recommend a specific intervention. For example, a student having difficulty decoding could use nonwritten media such as audiobooks to practice comprehension, while a student having difficulty making inferences could build up background knowledge and vocabulary. Concurrent with the change in how students with reading disabilities are identified and served through intervention programs with the federal IDEA policy, beginning in the early 2000s legislation at the state level enacted reading retention laws based on the cumulative disadvantage models of the 1980s and the longitudinal research of the 1990s, which showed students with early reading difficulties had more negative long-­ term outcomes, including higher rates of dropping out of high school (Hernandez, 2012) and lower income as adults (The Anne E.  Casey Foundation, 2010). Although there are variations in the specific elements of each law by state, in general these laws require students to be reading proficiently by the end of third grade. As of 2019, eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have enacted some form of reading retention law,

130 

L. NORTHROP

with an additional twelve states that allow retention but do not require it (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2018). Reading retention laws combine the elements of RTI under the IDEA reauthorization based on the cognitive model of reading difficulties with the long-term view of reading difficulties described by the cumulative disadvantage model. Although the motivation behind these policies is the idea that students with early reading difficulties will have a hard time catching up to their peers, the day-to-day requirements of these laws are more broadly based on tiered intervention structure provided by RTI and MTSS that target specific components of reading for intervention. As an example, the Ohio reading retention law, known as the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, requires an annual fall diagnostic assessment in literacy for kindergarten through third-grade students. Students who score below benchmark are considered “not on-track” for third-grade literacy and are given intervention instruction, which is documented in a Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan, which must include ninety minutes of instruction per day, in small-group settings, and frequent progress monitoring (Ohio Department of Education, 2019). The Ohio law also specifies specific qualifications teachers must hold to work with struggling readers in grades K-3. In this case, state-level policy specifically dictates how students are assessed, through a list of approved diagnostic assessments, and how students are provided intervention, through the required components of the Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan. In this way, the implementation of RTI through reading retention laws framed delays in reading development as a problem to be solved by small-group instruction in the classroom by teachers specifically trained in reading. Unfortunately, evidence for these methods are mixed: one large study of RTI found that students who participated in intervention instruction actually performed worse than similar peers (Balu et  al., 2015), while a district-level study of the Chicago Public schools’ retention policies are associated with only small gains in overall reading achievement (Roderick et al., 2002). In addition to RTI/MTSS and reading retention laws, another recent shift in policy has focused less on how students with reading difficulties are identified and more on the instructional practices used in the classroom. Since 2018, with the publication of Emily Hanford’s Hard Words, the focus has been on integrating instruction aligned with the science of reading movement. This movement centers on using two models to explain reading comprehension, the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer,

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

131

1986) and Scarborough’s Reading Rope (Scarborough, 2001), with the idea that the components of these models drive instructional choices. This shift in policy returns once again to framing reading issues as the result of cognitive deficits, in this case deficits with either word decoding or language comprehension, but then changes the solution to the problem from small-group intervention to a focus on the curriculum used for wholeclass literacy instruction. As of the early 2020s, at least eleven states have passed laws influencing the reading curriculum used in their state (Gerwertz, 2020), including Alabama, which bans the use of the three-­ cueing system associated with an instructional practice known as balanced literacy, and North Carolina, which requires teachers to be trained in “the science of reading” (Schwartz, 2021). In this case, unlike previous policies that focused on providing extra intervention instruction to struggling readers, the current science of reading movement focuses on the nature of instruction for all students. Because of this of intention, these policies may actually reduce the differential experiences in the classroom of struggling readers by providing access to similar types of instruction to all students. However, because not all struggling readers exhibit deficits in word decoding or language comprehension based on the Simple View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021), this shift to a one-size-fits-all instruction could limit access to different types of instruction students may need. Unlike the previous era, which was dominated by policy that was mostly focused on the cause of reading difficulties, the last thirty years was dominated by a notion that it wasn’t so much about why a student had a reading disability, but how to fix it. This era saw reading intervention move away from being provided only to special groups of identified students, to becoming a regular part of the classroom curriculum, especially for students in kindergarten through third grade.

Conclusion Table 5.1 summarizes how federal and state policies have influenced how students with reading difficulties have been identified and served in U.S. public schools throughout the last seventy years. In reviewing the historical evidence, I found that policy often effects the differential experiences of struggling readers in terms of both who gets identified as a student with reading difficulties and the nature of instruction provided to students with reading difficulties, because the type, amount, and location

132 

L. NORTHROP

Table 5.1  Reading policy & students with reading difficulties Year

Policy

Main ideas

1965

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

1975

Education for all Handicapped Children Act

1980s

N/A

1990s

N/A

2004

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reauthorization

This policy was based on the idea that reading difficulties were caused by environmental factors, such as poverty. Students needed to attend a high-poverty school to qualify for reading intervention services. This policy was based on the idea that reading difficulties were caused by individual factors, such as a deficit or inability to process some specific aspect of reading in the brain. Primarily relied on cognitive models of reading. Students needed to show an IQ-achievement discrepancy to qualify for reading intervention services. First appearance of the idea of cumulative disadvantage in reading—the idea that individual differences in reading ability led to different experiences for students, which then contribute to the widening of reading abilities. Uses both external and internal factors to explain reading difficulties. Largely ties the idea of reading achievement to reading volume. The return of the use of cognitive models, this time with longitudinal data to show reading trajectories of students. Supports the idea that all struggling readers need support and intervention, not just students who are IQ-achievement discrepant. Legalizes the use of Response-to-Intervention (RTI) to identify students with reading disabilities. Beginning of the use of screening and progress monitoring assessments such as AIMSWeb and DIBELS to identify students who qualify for reading intervention. These state level policies are based off the cumulative disadvantage model that students with early reading difficulties will continue to struggle in later years. Requires students to be reading proficiently by the end of third grade. Although based on the cumulative disadvantage model, utilizes the RTI/MTSS framework from IDEA 2004 for implementation.

2000s/2010s Reading Retention Laws

(continued)

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

133

Table 5.1 (continued) Year

Policy

Main ideas

2020s

Science of Reading Laws

These state level policies require reading instruction to be based off the collective group of reading research known as the science of reading. This movement identifies the Simple View of Reading and Scarborough’s Rope as the main models used to identify reading difficulties.

of intervention instruction change based on what is perceived to be the root cause of the problem. First, 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. This can be first seen with ESEA, which assumed poverty and environmental factors as the main cause of reading difficulties and provided financial support for reading intervention to poor students. Next was EHA, which assumed a cognitive deficit of some kind was the main cause of reading difficulties and provided financial support for reading intervention to students who were underperforming in reading based on an assumed ability level deciding rule. Then came the IDEA reauthorization, which again assumed a cognitive deficit of some kind was the main cause of reading difficulties but expanded the eligibility of students for reading intervention to include all students who were not making progress in reading. Lastly, state-level reading retention laws combined the assumption of cognitive deficits with the idea of cumulative disadvantage to push for early reading intervention and proficiency in reading by third grade. Second, policy impacts the type of reading intervention students receive based on specific requirements in the policy. Historically, ESEA and Title 1 money was used to supplement, not supplant, classroom reading instruction, thus increasing the amount of reading instruction a student received. In contrast, EHA allowed students to be pulled out of classroom, thus replacing one type of literacy instruction with another. However, neither of these laws specified the type of instruction students must receive. In contrast, the later reading retention laws and science of reading laws have focused more on the specific content, pedagogy, and assessment of reading instruction, thus signaling a shift toward increasingly prescriptive

134 

L. NORTHROP

policies that frame reading instruction itself as a policy problem with specific legislation as a solution.

Discussion Questions 1. How is reading intervention provided in your school or district? If your school or district receives Title 1 funds, does reading intervention differ based on whether it is Title 1 instruction or special education? 2. What is the core curriculum for literacy in grades K-5 in your school or district? Does the core curriculum align with the reading intervention curriculum? Does the core curriculum align with the science of reading movement? 3. How do you see your specific state policies (reading retention laws, teacher training requirements, etc.) impacting the choices your school or district makes regarding reading intervention?

References Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 21(1), 57–61. Allington, R.  L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 548–559. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for Chapter 1 and special education students in grades two, four and eight. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 529–542. Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school Reading (NCEE 2016-4000). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Calhoon, M.  B., Berkeley, S., & Scanlon, D. (2018). The erosion of FAPE for students with LD. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 34(1), 6–13. Chatterji, M. (2006). Reading achievement gaps, correlates, and moderators of early reading achievement: Evidence from the Early Longitudinal Study (ECLS) kindergarten to first grade sample. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 489–507. Coleman, J.  S., et  al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Government Printing Office. Cromer, W. (1970). The difference model: A new explanation for some reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(6), 471–488.

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

135

Duncan, G.  J., Dowsett, C.  J., Claessens, A., Magnunson, K., Huston, A.  C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L. S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. Duke, N.  K., & Cartwright, K.  B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S454. Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read: And what you can do about it. Harper & Brothers. Francis, D.  J., Shaywitz, S.  E., Stuebing, K.  K., Shaywitz, B.  A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3–17. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. Gerwertz, C. (2020, February 20). States to schools: Teach reading the right way. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-­learning/ states-­to-­schools-­teach-­reading-­the-­right-­way/2020/02 Green, E. & Goldstein, D. (2019). Reading scores on national exam decline in half the states. The New  York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2019/10/30/us/reading-­scores-­national-­exam.html Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. Hanford, E. (2018, October 26). Why are we still teaching reading the wrong way? The New  York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. c o m / 2 0 1 8 / 1 0 / 2 6 / o p i n i o n / s u n d a y / p h o n i c s -­t e a c h i n g -­r e a d i n g -­ wrong-­way.html Heibert, E. H., Colt, J. M., Catto, S. L., & Gury, E. C. (1992). Reading and writing of first-grade students in a restructured Chapter 1 program. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 545–572. Hernandez, D. J. (2012). Double jeopardy: How third grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16. McCormick, S., & Braithwaite, J. (2008). Fifty years of remedial and clinical reading in the United States: A historical overview. In M. J. Fresch (Ed.), An essential history of current reading practices. International Reading Association.

136 

L. NORTHROP

McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 475–490. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018). Third-grade reading legislation. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/third-­grade-­ reading-­legislation.aspx Ohio Department of Education. (2019). Guidance manual on the third grade reading guarantee school year 2019–2020. Retrieved from http://education. ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-­in-­Ohio/Literacy/Third-­Grade-­ Reading-­Guarantee/TGRG-­Guidance-­Manual.pdf.aspx?lang=en-­US Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in promotional gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 333–357. Scanlon, D. M., & Sweeney, J. M. (2008). Response to intervention an overview: New hope for struggling learners. Educator’s Voice, 1, 16–19. Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press. Schwartz, S. (2021, October 13). More states are making the “science of reading” a policy priority. Education Next. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ teaching-­l earning/more-­s tates-­a re-­m aking-­t he-­s cience-­o f-­r eading-­a ­policy-­priority/2021/10 Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skills: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445–460. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2001). The role of family and home in the literacy development of children from low-income backgrounds. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 92, 53–71. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934–947. Strauss, V. (2021, June 19). No systemic racism? Look at student achievement gaps in reading. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/19/systemic-­racism-­reading-­scores/ Strauss, V. (2013). All that bad information about the new NAEP scores. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-­sheet/ wp/2013/11/12/all-­that-­bad-­information-­about-­the-­new-­naep-­scores/ The Anne E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

5  CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE: DIFFERENTIAL EXPERIENCES… 

137

U.S. Department of Education. (2020). A history of the individuals with disabilities act. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-­History#2000s-­10s Xue, Y., & Meisels, S. J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study: Kindergarten class of 1998-1999. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 191–229.

Further Reading Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. M. (2021). Reading volume and reading achievement: A review of recent research. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 1–8 This article examines the evidence on reading volume and reading achievement, advocating for more reading time for struggling readers. Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education An evaluation of the impact of Response to Intervention programs, which found that students assigned to intervention instruction did worse than students who did not participate in intervention instruction. Francis, D.  J., Shaywitz, S.  E., Stuebing, K.  K., Shaywitz, B.  A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3–17 This article explores students’ reading growth trajectories using the Connecticut Longitudinal Study and provides some of the first evidence we have on how students develop in reading over the time. McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 475–490 McGill-Franzen analyzes the differences between the ESEA and EHA policies, tracing how failure to learn-­ to-­read shifted from a socioeconomic disadvantage to a problem of disability. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407 This seminal article describes the Matthew effect, which suggests that as students progress through school the gap between good and poor readers widens.

CHAPTER 6

A Language for Literacy Learning: Language Policy, Bi/Multilingual Students, and Literacy Instruction Amber N. Warren and Natalia Ward

Introduction Literacy instructional practices, teacher preparation, and the literacy assessment of bilingual and multilingual students in the United States are all intimately intertwined with the evolution of bilingual education policy in the United States. For example, as teachers of elementary-aged bi/multilingual students in a state where bilingual education in public schools was disallowed, it became visible to us early in our careers how policies and decisions made at the macro-level impact the daily lives of bi/multilingual children and their teachers.

A. N. Warren (*) Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] N. Ward East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_6

139

140 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

Children’s capacity to navigate the day-to-day of school and literacy instruction in a language very different from their own is affected by a complex of politically and ideologically charged policies related to the language of instruction. These policies all too often pressure schools to focus on standardized assessments in English at the expense of primary language maintenance or development. While advocates continue to champion multilingual education, the education system at large has often seemed at odds with the strengths these students bring with them to the literacy classroom. To adequately design literacy instruction for bi/multilingual students, it is necessary to understand how the legislation of the Bilingual Education Act (BEA, 1968) and subsequent reauthorizations has been imbricated in literacy research and framed the day-to-day practices of the literacy classroom. In this chapter, we trace the history of the BEA through its most recent iteration under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). We explore how changes in the language of the policy, including the renaming of the Act itself, are related to trends in literacy research and practice. By tracing each legislative change, we seek to identify trends in literacy research and instruction across the history of legislating the education of bi/multilingual students in this country.

Bilingual Education in the United States: A Brief History Although the passing of the BEA in 1968 marked the first time that bi/multilingual students’ education appears in federal policy, bilingual education in the United States has a long and storied history. Prior to World War I, schools were largely established and governed locally so opportunities for bilingual students to attend schools where instruction occurred in languages other than English were quite common. For example, a survey of school records in the U.S. Midwest found that over 200,000 children were being taught in German, or German-English schools by 1900 (Crawford, 1987). However, following World War I and through the 1950s, nationalist shifts in immigration and educational policy resulted in decreased numbers of immigrants coming from countries other than Europe. As part of this increased insularity, German-English schools in particular decreased in the United States. This nationalist shift framed bilingualism as a problem for national security and unity, which

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

141

ultimately served as a catalyst for assimilationist education trends that persist today. In the mid to late 1960s, immigration patterns again shifted. New laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (1965), removed restrictive quotas that determined the numbers of immigrants from certain places, thus making immigration from non-European countries easier. This in turn shifted the landscape of K-12 classrooms in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2015; Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). As increasing numbers of non-European immigrants entered the United States, the education of immigrant children also became a national focus. The introduction of the Bilingual Education Act (1968) as an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965) ushered in eras of increasing oversight of bilingual students’ schooling and restriction on their language use. Government oversight of bi/multilingual students’ education led to the framing of bilingualism as a “problem” due in large part to a persistent focus on achievement as measured by students’ performance on tests in English, making monolingual instruction the inevitable “solution.” This instruction, in turn, was increasingly controlled by tighter and tighter regulation calling for the measurement of students’ monolingual development as evidence of progress. Although the BEA touted the importance of ensuring equal educational opportunities for bi/multilingual students, ultimately, it led to increasingly monolingual literacy instruction and assessment driven by assimilationist ideologies. Bilingual Education Act: The Early Years  he Genesis of the Bilingual Education Act: 1968 T In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Johnson as part of his commitment to a “War on Poverty.” One of the primary goals of the ESEA was “to address the effects of poverty on educational and economic achievement” (de Jong, 2013, p.  135). Despite the growing numbers of bi/multilingual students in K-12 schools in the United States, however, the ESEA was introduced and passed with no specific provisions related to supporting their educational attainment. However, around the United States, bi/multilingual students’ linguistic and cultural assets were not being taken into account when designing and planning instruction, and the negative consequences of this were readily observable. For example, high dropout rates were reported in

142 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

major cities around the United States, including Boston, New  York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles (Fisher, 1972). In response to the manifest need to adequately address education for bi/multilingual K-12 students, civil rights and community groups began to advocate against an English-only approach. These groups aimed to draw attention to the lack of educational equity for bi/multilingual students in U.S. schools. Their efforts led to the production of a report by the National Education Association (NEA, 1966). This report, titled Invisible Minority/Pero no vincibles, was endorsed by activist groups and bilingual communities, such as the Cuban community of Florida. The report included information on how many bilingual students American schools were serving and offered evidence for how these schools were failing to meet the academic needs of bi/multilingual students. Finally, the report recommended implementing bilingual education programs and emphasized a need to include bilingual students’ native languages and cultures as part of the curriculum (Escamilla, 2018). This report, along with activists’ efforts from within the communities affected by this legislation, was instrumental in bringing attention to the need “to develop and implement educational programs that honor and value students’ culture, history, and heritage” (Escamilla, 2018, p. 2). Following this heightened attention, the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) was subsequently introduced as an amendment to the ESEA by Senator Yarborough of Texas. He framed this legislation as an opportunity to redress what he described as a “problem” of bi/multilingual students’ deficiency in English, which he saw as the main reason for their struggle and failure to graduate from U.S. schools. He argued the importance of English language instruction as a necessary solution because: many of our school-age children come from homes where the mother tongue is not English. As a result, these children enter school not speaking English and not able to understand the instructions that is [sic] all conducted in English. [There is] an urgent need for this legislation to provide equal educational opportunity for those children who do not come to school with English-speaking ability (US Congress 1967:37037). (Bangura & Muo, 2001, p. 58)

Thus, although the passage of BEA was a landmark decision in many ways, from its conception it was based on a subtractive orientation toward bilingualism, which emphasized “English-speaking ability” over bi/

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

143

multilingual development. This framing changed the course of bilingual education in the United States, placing bi/multilingual students’ educational needs as a matter of national importance and emphasizing federal, rather than local, oversight. Proponents of bilingual education observed several problematic aspects of the policy. For instance, the focus of the BEA in 1968 was exclusively on children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Although this focus reflected national priorities of that time, it disregarded both the cultural and linguistic diversity present in bilingual populations across the United States. Ultimately, the language of the policy overgeneralized the bilingual population as “economically disadvantaged,” and “Spanish-­ speaking,” largely misrepresenting the heterogeneity of bilingual populations in the United States. This in turn limited the extent to which the BEA could adequately address linguistic support for the variety of bi/ multilingual students in U.S. schools (Budiman, 2020; de Jong, 2013). Thus, although the first iteration of the BEA was landmark in many respects, it opened up a number of questions for literacy educators and researchers concerned with supporting bi/multilingual students in U.S. schools.  iteracy Research and Practice: Oracy and the Role of Culturally L Relevant Texts As the BEA did not provide specific pedagogical guidance regarding how best to approach instruction for bi/multilingual students, it is perhaps unsurprising that much of the literacy research at the time was focused on identifying what effective curricula and literacy instruction would look like for bi/multilingual children. In the research literature, two trends emerged. The first focused on the role of oral language development as a prerequisite to reading instruction. The second focused on the place of bi/multilingual students’ primary language and culture in the context of U.S. schooling. A major concern in literacy scholarship of the early 1960s was the degree to which bilingual children’s oral-aural development in English contributed to their “reading readiness” (Horn, 1966, p.  38). Reading programs were designed to intentionally “protect” students from contact with written language until after they mastered oral language, which could be up to two years (Allen, 1973, p. 17). The general consensus was that teaching reading skills before developing students’ fluency in listening and speaking was akin to “putting the cart before the horse,” and prerequisites

144 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

for learning to read included both pronunciation and the capacity to speak in complete sentences (Sizemore, 1963, p. 3). Relatedly, there was a pervasive belief that “formal reading instruction of English” should not begin “until the children have acquired adequate English language skills; otherwise, the children may be doomed to frustration and failure in learning to read” (Ching, 1976, p. 12). This assumption likely stemmed from instruction in adult English language classes, which traditionally introduced speaking before moving on to reading or writing (Horn, 1966). But it also reflected a broader societal narrative regarding a so-called culture of poverty. This theory assigned a set of characteristics to children coming from marginalized economic backgrounds including an orientation to bilingual students as linguistically deficient (Lewis, 1961). Although this theory has long since been debunked, this notion underpinned much of educational research at the time (Gorski, 2008). Furthermore, this theory was similarly reflected in the language of the BEA in 1968, which focused explicitly on the needs of bi/multilingual students from economically disadvantaged communities. A second trend focused on the importance of bridging students’ home culture and language in schools. Generally, students’ diverse linguistic practices were understood as assets (e.g., Kittell, 1963; Timothy, 1964). Their home language was considered to offer children “a sense of prestige and accomplishment in knowing more than one language” and as an important foundation for developing students’ literacy (Timothy, 1964, p. 237). However, although acknowledging the importance of supporting students’ primary language was common, research was generally concentrated on developing students’ literacy in English, and neither maintenance of the home language nor the development of biliteracy was seen as a central concern. Thus, although effective reading instruction for bi/ multilingual students was expected to begin with building students’ home language literacy, it was predominantly seen as a means to support subsequent literacy development in English. The emphasis on students’ home languages and cultures was especially visible in the discussion of reading instructional materials. Given the scarcity of instructional materials specifically designed for bi/multilingual children, literacy scholars and practitioners argued the importance of considering students’ linguistic and “cultural uniqueness” (Fisher, 1972, p. 94) in designing and selecting reading materials (Rojas, 1965). These scholars called for the importance of validating students’ culture and

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

145

heritage by using culturally relevant texts. For example, Fisher (1972) offered one compelling argument, stating: [I]t is difficult to understand how the teacher or the school system can avoid conveying a sense of rejection of a child’s language in the absence of any formal recognition of its legitimacy in the texts he uses. It seems that unless culturally relevant literature written in the child’s dialect is used, all that could be communicated is a spirit of tolerance regarding his dialect. The child would still see the school and the teacher as alien to his own world. (p. 93)

In addition to considering the value of culturally relevant texts, scholars concentrated on understanding how to design materials specifically for students with limited experience in reading English-language texts. Although research emphasized the importance of understanding specific linguistic aspects of learning to read in a second language, it was primarily focused on conveying technical knowledge of the English language (e.g., grammatical features) through English-language texts (Rojas, 1965). In this way, the argument in favor of using culturally relevant materials was largely a utilitarian one in which students’ native language development was primarily seen as important for preparing them to learn and read in and through English. Thus, at the time of the first iteration of the BEA, bi/multilingual students’ first and second languages were generally viewed as separate and separable, with consensus that students’ home languages were important primarily during the initial stages of literacy development because they served as a foundation for the development of English oracy and literacy. This largely assimilationist approach to educating bi/multilingual students was reflected in both the newly legislated policy and literacy research of the time setting the stage for the subsequent iterations of BEA, which became increasingly focused on English language and literacy development. At the same time, research agendas established around the genesis of the BEA inspired generations of literacy researchers who took up these topics and deepened our understanding of important instructional practices such as the use of culturally relevant literature and methods for developing bi/multilingual students’ literacy.

146 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

 xpanding the Bilingual Education Act: 1974 and 1978 E In 1974, the BEA was amended to specifically define bilingual education as “instruction given in, and study of, English, and, to the extent necessary to allow a child to progress effectively through the educational system, the native language” (BEA, 1974, Sec. 703[a][4][A][i], emphasis added). The policy also introduced the term “Limited English Proficiency” (LEP) to describe the bi/multilingual students, reframing the issue from one of poverty to one of ethnolinguistic diversity. This labeling of bi/multilingual students as “limited English proficient” was a harbinger for an increasingly restrictive focus on English proficiency as central to bi/multilingual students’ schooling. Although the policy included provision for instruction in the students’ primary language(s), the use of the descriptor, limited, coupled with a focus on English proficiency framed bilingual students as English-deficient and exacerbated educational inequities as this framing encouraged a focus on remediating students’ “lack” of English proficiency rather than building on their bilingual strengths (García, 2009). This choice of phrasing, among other things, implied that native language use was only necessary to the extent that it would be needed to ensure that students were able to “progress effectively” through the U.S. educational system—a system wherein instruction continued to be primarily, or exclusively, in English. Specifically, bilingual education programs were defined as Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) or Maintenance Bilingual Education (MBE), with dual language programs ineligible for funding (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988). Therefore, although “districts had to implement bilingual education programs for the specified target groups in order to receive federal funding” (de Jong, 2013, p. 137), the emphasis in bilingual instruction was on subtractive programming, in which students’ native languages were at best “maintained” but not developed. In 1978, the BEA was again reauthorized. At this time, it was expanded to include explicit focus on reading and writing instruction for all bilingual students regardless of their oral language proficiency (Crawford, 1987). This reauthorization further emphasized the importance of standardized reading tests as a measure of bilingual education program effectiveness. Improving reading outcomes also gained a prominent place in research focused on bi/multilingual children’s literacy (Ebel, 1980). This focus on English proficiency as measured by reading tests administered primarily in English set the stage for bilingual education programming around the country. During this period, bilingual education policy firmly moved

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

147

toward becoming monolingual at its core, focusing on the acquisition of English rather than developing bilingualism and biliteracy (Escamilla, 2018; García, 2009). Although bilingual approaches to education were still ostensibly endorsed, in practice the emphasis was on assimilationist approaches wherein the goal was English language proficiency. This de facto focus on English acquisition also drove much of the literacy research and practice at the time.  iteracy Research and Practice: Reading in English Takes Center Stage L By the late 1970s new approaches to literacy instruction reflected growing interest in bi/multilingual students’ capacity to read and write in English and began to challenge previous beliefs regarding the need to achieve oracy first. For example, some scholars suggested that it might be possible to immerse students in English reading and English-language texts, rather than begin with oracy or reading in students’ native languages at all (e.g., Ching, 1976; Venezky, 1970). These studies reflect the political discussions around the BEA at the time, which were largely focused on supporting native language only insofar as it was necessary for the attainment of English (Escamilla, 2018; Gándara & Escamilla, 2016). Thus, the literacy and oracy debate shifted into one concerned with the structure of bilingual education programs. Emphasis became centered on instruction in the content areas in both English and the students’ native language. A second trend stemmed from early bilingual literacy scholarship and argued for the importance of culturally responsive pedagogy in educating bi/multilingual students (Cazden & Leggett, 1981). Building on the understanding that “a monolingual, monocultural school system succeeds only in denying a whole generation of children an education,” this scholarship focused on bridging assumed differences between students’ home culture and language with that of the school (Fisher, 1972, p.  89). In response, other scholars sought to understand “the speech and language interactions of teachers and students” by examining language as a social practice (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 159). These scholars pushed back on the idea that bi/multilingual students were linguistically deficient by examining bilingual students’ language in school settings and demonstrating the linguistic sophistication with which bi/multilingual students navigated reading and schooling (Cazden et al., 1972). Research also began to demonstrate the power of incorporating students’ home language in literacy instruction as part of promoting cultural and linguistic pluralism in the classroom (Gumperz & Hernandez-Chavez,

148 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

1972). In addition, studies reinforced previous assertions that culturally relevant texts contributed to students’ literacy development and began to connect text comprehension to students’ background knowledge (DuBois, 1979). Overall, this accumulating body of research, informed by insights from sociolinguistics, sociology, and anthropology, demonstrated the centrality of drawing upon students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds for effective literacy instruction (Ching, 1976). Despite insights from a widening array of scholarship, policy and instruction remain steadfastly focused on improving students’ English language and literacy. In fact, a second vein of scholarship challenged the notion of a culturally relevant curriculum (Ching, 1976). This approach coalesced as an argument in favor of a “common acculturative curriculum,” under which all children, no matter their cultural and linguistic background, would be taught through a common set of texts designed to create shared background knowledge and vocabulary for navigating academic work in schools (Hirsch, 1983, p.  167). Proponents of this approach advocated for a standardized national curriculum, which based the “content of the reading materials upon a school subject such as science [...] or civics, which the children learn together as common experiences in the school situation” (Ching, 1976, p. 9). This argument thrived under the language of the BEA at the time, which “acknowledged the role native language could play,” but “did not promote bilingual education as an enrichment program where the native language was maintained” (Wiese & García, 1998, p. 6). The Middle Years: Moving Toward Measurement  eauthorizing the BEA in 1984, 1988, and 1994 R The reauthorizations of the BEA in 1984 and 1988 reflected building concern in ESEA that instructional programming was “failing” U.S. students. This increasing focus on failure was motivated by growing national concern with the status of the United States as a world leader in the global economy. These concerns were reflected in the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, which described U.S. students as “at risk” of falling behind other countries. By instilling fear in the American people about the country’s possible loss of exceptional status in the world, this widely publicized report created a sense of urgency to enhance the education of students in the United States. As consensus grew around the claims made in the

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

149

report, education for bi/multilingual students also came under scrutiny, and BEA policy tightened with regard to the programming that was offered to bi/multilingual students. Each iteration of the BEA provided increasingly specific guidance regarding the types of programs that could be instituted in local settings. Each reauthorization, too, reflected a continuing national push toward standardization and measurement of student outcomes as a proxy for program effectiveness. This diagnostic framing led to the introduction of language within the BEA focused on assessing students’ progress toward both English language proficiency and contentknowledge proficiency as measured in English. In 1985, William J.  Bennett publicly declared bilingual education a failure and pushed for English-language development over other approaches as the key to improving educational outcomes (Lyons, 1990). President Reagan similarly echoed these sentiments, calling bilingual education “wrong” and “against American concepts” arguing that “getting them [bilingual students] adequate in English” was necessary for U.S. society (Baker, 2011, p. 189). Thus, by the time the BEA was reauthorized in 1994, another nationalist shift emphasizing unity through linguistic cohesion was afoot. Legislative monolingualism became prevalent in state education mandates, when as early as 1998 (California) and 2000 (Arizona), states began to pass English-only instructional mandates, limiting the time spent in a students’ primary language in schools. These “English Only” movements became central to the national conversation about how to educate the youngest U.S. citizens from bi/multilingual backgrounds. The apotheosis of these movements resulted in a proposed Language of Government Act (1995), which would ensure that English became the only language of the American government—and schools by extension. Thus, although legislation continued to carry the word “bilingual,” these state mandates and the federal stance toward bi/multilingual students were demonstrative of a shift toward fewer bilingual educational programs (McField, 2014) and heralded an era of education-specific language bills, which mandated that “all public school children must be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English language classrooms” (Galvin, 2002, p. 6). For instance, a number of states, including California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, effectively became English-only states by banning most forms of bilingual education in the late 1990s (Mitchell, 2019).

150 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

 iteracy Research and Practice in the 1980s and 1990s: Fears over L Failing Schools Affect Foci Literacy research in the 1980s and 1990s continued to examine many of the same questions and concerns that emerged in previous decades. However, with an increasing interest in the standardization of literacy curricula and measurement, as well as a focus on teachers as the fulcrum of school improvement, new avenues of research also gained traction. A central question that continued to drive research was whether it was better to “teach ESL reading by beginning with native- language reading instruction, or by teaching native-language reading concurrently with ESL reading, or by solely teaching ESL reading” (Fitzgerald, 1995, p. 121). As findings continued to accumulate, consensus began to emerge that teaching students to read in their native language first may not be necessary to their learning to read in English (August & Hakuta, 1997; Echevarria, 1995; Lado, 1977). Alongside this, scholarship interested in promoting a “common core” of literacy practices challenged the value of culturally relevant instruction. A body of literacy research promoting students’ proficiency in reading in English began to accumulate (e.g., Cohen & Rodriquez, 1980; Feeley, 1983; Fitzgerald, 1995). This research fundamentally countered previous research that had emphasized the benefit of culturally relevant instruction. Instead, the central argument of these studies was that the goal of literacy instruction was to reach proficiency in English. As such, these scholars suggested that instruction should not consider “ethnocultural learning styles,” but instead should solely focus on learning objectives and outcomes measured by standardized tests (Cohen & Rodriquez, 1980, p. 12). This direction aligned closely with state-level legislation, which emphasized transitional bilingual programming and limited bi/multilingual students’ time in primary language instruction to as little as one year in some cases. Given the growing consensus that bi/multilingual students should be introduced to literacy instruction in English as early as possible, literacy research also began to examine teachers’ preparedness to achieve this. University-based teacher preparation programs came under scrutiny with regard to the preparation of future teachers to meet the needs of bi/multilingual students (Gonzalez & Darling-Hammond, 2000). Drawing on analyses of teacher education textbooks and classroom practices, researchers observed that classroom teachers were not being effectively prepared to support bi/multilingual students in their classrooms (e.g., Bernhardt, 1994; Parla et al., 1996; Sleeter, 1992). This line of research shed light on

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

151

the dearth of materials used by schools of education in preparing pre- and in-service teachers for serving their culturally and linguistically diverse students. For instance, studies focused on the limited space within teacher education texts dedicated to addressing instruction of bi/multilingual students as a proxy for identifying how teachers were being prepared to support these learners (e.g., Bernhardt, 1994; Ebel, 1980). Additionally, studies indicated a wide degree of variability within literacy classroom instruction of bi/multilingual children, including placing them into basal series years below their actual age-appropriate grade and tutoring them before or after school (Collie, 1993). At the same time, researchers continued to examine school effectiveness for bi/multilingual students (Necochea & Cline, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Scholarship emphasized the importance of valuing students’ home languages and cultures, allowing students to use their home language in class in support of their literacy development in English and holding students to high academic standards (Carter & Chatfield, 1986; Lucas et  al., 1990). However, the focus within policy and instruction remained on English language literacy couched within dominant discourses, which held a “limited vision of students” and led to “the reductionist instruction” in the classroom (Moll, 1992, p.  21). This singular focus disregarded accumulating research demonstrating that learning two languages simultaneously does not cause confusion or language delays in young children, that teaching both languages facilitates English language learning, and that students possess valuable funds of knowledge originated in their heritage communities (e.g., August & Hakuta, 1997; Diaz et al., 1986; Lucas et al., 1990; Moll, 1992). Thus, although positive instructional changes resulted from research that emphasized bi/multilingual students’ capacity to develop literacy in English without delay, the introduction of English literacy earlier into students’ instruction simultaneously encouraged a shift away from developing students’ native language literacy as part of the project of schooling. Ultimately, the lukewarm endorsement of bilingual education within the BEA combined with increasing emphasis on bilingual students’ performance on “standardized reading tests designed for native speakers” (Ebel, 1980, p. 406), lack of resources for promoting bilingualism, and research promulgating a common curricular experience for all students solidified the role of reading tests in English as the key indicator of bilingual program success and students’ educational attainment. The trend toward assessment and accountability at this time has haunted the entire

152 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

span of policy and research on literacy instruction for bilingual students and remains significant today.  CLB 2001: New Demands for Language and Literacy Development N In 2001, the ESEA was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As part of this, bi/multilingual students were explicitly mentioned within its assessment mandates. For the first time, schools were required to demonstrate that bi/multilingual students were making adequate yearly progress “as measured on standardized tests of both English language proficiency and academic content” (Menken, 2010, p.  121). Under NCLB, the BEA was also revised to reflect this focus on standardized measurement of progress in subject area learning. To reflect this, the BEA was also renamed, becoming the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act (2001). This change in name underscores the ever-increasing focus on monolingual, English language proficiency. Thus: In stark contrast to the goals of the Bilingual Education Act, which emphasized putting structures and programming in place to promote language learning, the main focus of the NCLB provisions is on educational outcomes and accountability. (Menken, 2010, p. 122)

These changes aligned with shifting views visible during the 1980s, which emphasized the ways in which schools and teachers were largely failing to support students in their pursuit of literacy development. Corollary to this, individual states began to produce education policies focused on developing bi/multilingual students’ English language development to the exclusion of their biliteracy. Finally, this decade saw an increase in licensure and standards for teachers to include their preparedness for bilingual students. Teacher licensure regulations and teacher education accreditation criteria now required coursework in second language acquisition and in specific teaching strategies to support bi/multilingual students and their families (Castro et al., 2011). For example, coursework emphasized interactive and cognitive strategies such as pair work and building background knowledge, as well as comprehensibility supports (i.e., gestures and visuals/images).

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

153

 iteracy Research and Practice: Assessment, Accountability, L and English-Only State Policies In literacy research, focus narrowed to reflect this linguistic shift, emphasizing “English language acquisition” and “academic achievement” as observed through outcomes-focused assessments. Scant support for maintaining bilingualism visible in previous iterations of policy gave way to emphasis on discrete components of English language literacy as identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). The notion that bi/multilingual students must acquire English to succeed in the United States, which served as a backdrop for statewide policies, also permeated literacy research at the time. These ideological assumptions, which underpinned NCLB, were crystallized in the introduction to the 2006 report, Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, which stated: U.S. economic competitiveness depends on workforce quality. Inadequate reading and writing proficiency in English relegates rapidly increasing language-­minority populations to the sidelines, limiting the nation’s potential for economic competitiveness, innovation, productivity growth, and quality of life. (August & Shanahan, 2006, pp. 1–2)

Thus, although literacy research continued to acknowledge the importance of drawing on students’ home languages in instruction (e.g., August & Shanahan, 2006), students’ primary languages were treated primarily as a tool for achieving English language proficiency. Fully aligned with NCLB’s focus on English language acquisition, research and practice often overlooked the overwhelming benefits of developing students’ literacy in both languages simultaneously, choosing instead to emphasize students’ English language development as the aim of K-12 literacy instruction (Goldenberg, 2011; Francis et al., 2006; Rolstad et al., 2005; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Willig, 1985). The new vision for developing literacy with bi/multilingual learners included emphasis on providing “opportunities for students to engage with texts, peers, and teachers using language and literacy in all of its complexity” (Kibler et al., 2015, p. 11). As such, researchers began to reconsider the best programs for instructing bi/multilingual learners. As part of this, the role of oral language development once again gained prominence. In addition to understanding oral language as interactional competence in day-to-day conversations, literacy research began to concentrate on the

154 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

importance of academic discourses in the classroom as a requisite of student academic success (Zwiers & Crawford, 2011). This focus encouraged literacy research to expand beyond the walls of reading instruction and to consider the literacy practices of each content area. For example, researchers sought to identify talk moves that could cut across content areas, such as accountable talk and revoicing, as well as the discourse moves necessary for specific disciplines such as math or literacy (Michaels et  al., 2010; Oliveira et  al., 2014; Pappas et  al., 2012; Torres-Guzmán, 2011). Alongside the focus on oral language development, researchers examined specific approaches to developing phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension with bi/multilingual students (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003; Mancilla-­ Martinez & Lesaux, 2010; Proctor et  al., 2006; Silverman, 2007). Contrasting research directions that became prominent in the 1980s and 1990s, these studies demonstrated that bi/multilingual students learn best when the instruction is inclusive, socially just, and draws upon their linguistic and cultural strengths. In a continuation of research from the previous decade, studies examining classroom pedagogy and teacher education highlighted teachers’ readiness to work effectively with bi/multilingual students in literacy as a key component to these students’ success. Research at this time largely continued to identify “gaps” in teachers’ knowledge (Cochran-Smith, 2004). As remedy for this, literacy and language scholars offered concrete suggestions, such as inviting reflection on beliefs about linguistic diversity and increased opportunities to work with bi/multilingual students in training (Coady et  al., 2011; Lucas & Grinberg, 2008). They also argued for increased opportunities to explore how literacy is developed in a second language and how instruction can be modified to be more linguistically responsive (Gebhard et al., 2011; Hsu, 2009; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). At the same time, however, heated debates about whether teaching bi/multilingual students in fact required a unique set of skills continued. For example, some scholarship suggested that literacy instruction for bi/multilingual learners largely mirrored that of monolingual students and, as such, did not require much specialized training (e.g., Goldenberg, 2011). Still other researchers emphasized that “teaching English language learners required preparation above and beyond training required of teachers in an English-only setting” (Menken & Antuñez, 2001, p. 10). Thus, NCLB and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) era ushered in an even more heightened focus on bi/multilingual students’ development of school-based language, while also forefronting an interest in

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

155

what exactly teachers need to know to instruct their bi/multilingual students in these literacy skills. Some scholars, especially those focused explicitly on issues related to teaching bi/multilingual learners, continued to emphasize the importance of utilizing students’ primary languages. However, the countervailing emphasis on school-based language, the focus on assessment in English, and the arrival of the CCSS continued to mean that primary language maintenance and development were often treated as secondary. Educating Bi/Multilingual Students Under ESSA 2015–Present Another important legislative change came about with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015. For the first time since bi/multilingual students’ education became a focus in federal legislation, the language of ESSA shifted several provisions of accountability for English learners from Title III to Title I.  While historically, the federal government had been solely responsible for monitoring and oversight of state and local efforts to educate bi/multilingual students, this shift placed responsibility on state and local education agencies to take up this mantle (Callahan et al., 2022). Although ESSA shifted the balance of decision-making toward more state control of education for bi/multilingual learners, at the same time the language of the policy continued to reflect attitudes and linguistic choices visible in NCLB. The word “bilingual” remained absent from written policy, and emphasis was placed on developing English proficiency under the guise of supporting “all English learners to meet the same challenging State academic standards that all children are expected to meet” (ESSA, 2015, Title III, Sec. 3102(1–2)). In addition, despite provisions requiring state education agencies to offer certification and additional training to prepare teachers to support bi/multilingual students, only 20 states required teachers to hold special certification for working with bi/multilingual learners in 2018 (Leider et al., 2021). State language education policies under ESSA have largely continued to reflect this emphasis on English although to some degree the ceding of policy decisions over to the state level has resulted in uneven implementation of the policy (Leider et al., 2021; López & Santibanez, 2018; Morita-­ Mullaney & Singh, 2019). For instance, some states have overturned their previous English-only policies (e.g., California), while others, such as

156 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

Florida, made every effort to overturn the proposals to institute first language assessments as part of the state’s ESSA plan (Leider et al., 2021; Mitchell, 2019). Furthermore, research has found that when states’ policy language includes a more nationalistic focus and narrow immigration policies, this nationalistic focus is visible in their ESSA plans as well, while states with more expansive immigration policies typically have more linguistically expansive education goals (Callahan et  al., 2022). Thus, the shift to state control appears to be creating ever more uneven terrain within the landscape of bi/multilingual student education.  iteracy Research and Practice: Revisiting the Role of Culture L and Language Literacy research post-ESSA has continued to focus on teacher preparation as the fulcrum of change for positively influencing bi/multilingual students’ language development while simultaneously continuing to develop a well of knowledge regarding how bi/multilingual students learn literacy. Research focused on teacher preparation in recent years has emphasized culturally sustaining practice, translanguaging, and meaningful field experiences with bi/multilingual students in pre- and in-service education (Faltis & Valdéz, 2016; Lucas et al., 2018; Paris & Alim, 2017; Martin & Smolcic, 2019). It also highlights the importance of augmenting pedagogical knowledge applicable to monolingual students with principles of second language and biliteracy development (García et al., 2017). Yet the aims and findings of this research seem to work in contrast with policies and standards that require bi/multilingual students to demonstrate arbitrarily established proficiency levels on assessment of grade-level classroom content in English (Smith, 2016). Such policies require teachers to be skilled at re-envisioning how to prepare bilingual students to meet the challenges of the grade-level curricula that may actively ignore sustaining students’ languages and cultures (Faltis & Valdéz, 2016). As such, although ESSA incorporated provisions that called for professional development specifically geared toward educating bi/multilingual learners, left in the hands of individual states these efforts have often under-emphasized the development of bilingual or English-as-a-second-language specialists, focusing instead on offering stop-gap training to classroom teachers. Research concerned with students’ biliteracy has begun to capitalize on the concept of translanguaging, which assumes that bilingual individuals can draw upon all their linguistic repertoires simultaneously and

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

157

purposefully in communication. The notion of translanguaging highlights the complexity of a “bilingual language system,” which lends students “more tools, richer resources, and more flexible ways to learn a new knowledge, to express themselves, and to communicate with others” (Osorio, 2020, p.  2). This distancing from formerly long-held theories treating bilinguals as two monolingual language users is guiding a revitalized interest in bilingualism and biliteracy development (Seltzer & de los Ríos, 2021). Literacy research has begun to demonstrate the ways in which bi/multilingual students draw on a repertoire of resources to engage and make sense of texts. These resources are “linguistic and verbal; others are visual; others involve gestures, the body, as well as the lives and knowledge systems with which speakers have engaged” (García, 2020, p. 557). Furthermore, researchers are continuing to explore how biliteracy develops and how specific pedagogical methods or interventions contribute to biliteracy development over time (e.g., Baker et  al., 2017; Borman et  al., 2019; Butvilofsky et  al., 2021). Together, this research promisingly offers practically oriented suggestions for how to promote biliteracy in the classroom. Research on culturally relevant teaching practices has also seen a significant boost with the emergence of the ideas of culturally sustaining pedagogy, which has been taken up in literacy studies as well (Paris & Alim, 2017). This research demonstrates that linguistic and cultural representation in school-based materials, activities, and practices is critical for supporting bi/multilingual students in the classroom (Brooks, 2017; Rosa & Flores, 2017). Thus, language and literacy research has consistently demonstrated how acquisition of literacy in students’ primary/native languages can springboard their literacy development in English (MacSwan et al., 2017). Yet opportunities to develop these skills continue to be rarely available in U.S. schools. Thus, while recent literacy research concerned with educating bi/multilingual students offers numerous possibilities for promoting bilingualism and biliteracy, educational policies and their enactment under ESSA often continue to reinforce English-only standardized language approaches that consistently fail bi/multilingual students (Smith, 2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act offers flexibility and opportunities for schools to address the needs of bi/multilingual students, while at the same time failing to effectively position biliteracy and bilingualism as central to their educational success.

158 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

Conclusion In reviewing the development of policy and literacy research over time and considering their relationship to one another, it appears that policy has been informed by literacy research in limited ways. Research efforts, on the other hand, decidedly have been influenced by policy decisions. The initial passing and reauthorizations of the Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968, 1974, and 1978 were instrumental in setting the stage for literacy research and practice in regard to bi/multilingual K-12 students. While these early iterations included some reference to students’ home languages and cultures as assets, the literature reviewed and described herein reveals that bilingualism and biliteracy were often treated as merely a necessary precursor to English proficiency and acculturation. With the BEA reauthorizations in 1984 and 1988, this de facto focus on students’ development in English became visible within the language policy, which increasingly framed native language use as a remediation technique to promote English development. By 2001, the term “bilingual” was removed from the policy entirely, and the BEA was renamed the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. These shifts underscore the fact that the focus on English has always been present in federal priorities in educating bi/multilingual students. Most recently, under ESSA, the relocation of policies guiding educational outcomes for and expectations of bi/multilingual learners to state and local governance has again shifted local practices and approaches to the literacy education and assessment of bi/multilingual learners in our schools (Callahan et al., 2022; Hakuta, 2020). By reviewing the timeline of the BEA, this chapter also reveals how policies focused on reading attainment seem to have aided in the shift of this debate, increasingly focusing on reading achievement in English. Additionally, although extensive research since the inception of the BEA has consistently demonstrated the value of bilingualism and biliteracy, the policy itself has steadfastly centered literacy development in English (Smith, 2016). With the enactment of NCLB (2001) and its emphasis on testing in English, schools moved ever more steadily toward monolingual English-only instruction. Despite this, evidence for the importance of drawing on students’ primary languages and cultures and the benefits of biliteracy has continued to accrue (e.g., Flores, 2016; García, 2020). “The discourse on language policy in the U.S. has been framed as an either-or choice between English and other languages” (Center for

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

159

Applied Linguistics, n.d., para. 3), leaving primary language development clearly separated from English language and literacy development, which takes place in schools. For decades, this separation has been rationalized “on the grounds that it is necessary for people to become culturally and linguistically united in order to live together in peace, harmony, and prosperity” (Fisher, 1972, p. 88). Yet globally and in the United States, people communicate within and across communities through a variety of linguistic modes. Language policy and literacy instruction in the United States need to reflect the cultural and linguistic reality of their students (Paris & Alim, 2017). Drawing on the themes highlighted across the history of literacy research in relation to the BEA, we offer the following ways forward: (a) move away from outdated, static notions of culture and language to embrace the complex linguistic realities of our students; (b) create systematic, ongoing learning opportunities for pre- and in-­service teachers to increase their knowledge of second language and biliteracy development, as well as their understanding of socio-cultural and political factors impacting educational equity; and (c) reconsider educational policies in light of current research on bilingual education and biliteracy as well as work toward policies that encourage equitable literacy instruction couched in the realities of a pluralistic society. The charge for all stakeholders ƒ is to identify paths forward within our educational system, while simultaneously sustaining cultural and linguistic pluralism of individual students, families, and communities.

Discussion Questions 1. Given the accumulation of research in support of bilingualism and biliteracy, how can policy be changed to reflect that? What obstacles to this change do you foresee? How would you combat those? 2. Some argue that ESSA enactment brought opportunities for increased biliteracy instruction in schools thanks to its flexibility and the release of decision-making to the individual states. Others argue that this creates an uneven terrain of policy enactment and leads to some states returning to draconian monolingual policies and practices. Examine the policies related to bi/multilingual students in your state. What is the guidance for schools and teachers? How is biliteracy promoted in your school? In your district? In your community?

160 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

3. Globally, developing literacy in multiple languages in school is considered part of the norm. Why do you think this has not been the case in the United States? 4. Fifty years ago, Fisher (1972) wrote that the “chief failure of our efforts at universal public education arises from the fact that we offer only one monocultural and monolingual curriculum.” How do you see this observation applying to our schools today? How much has changed? In what ways are the curricula—and literacy curricula in particular—still primarily “monocultural and monolingual” in U.S. public schools today? 5. Seltzer and de los Ríos (2021) argue that “schools and teachers must make shifts to existing curricula and instruction that bring students’ bi/multilingualism and ways of knowing to the surface and then frame their language practices and knowledge as integral to their learning” (p. 6). At the same time, across the nation districts and states continue adopting and employing scripted curricula couched within monolingual, monocultural practices that limit opportunities for creativity, differentiation, and multilingualism. How can we navigate these dichotomous, often opposing views of literacy teaching and learning?

References Allen, V. F. (1973). Trends in the teaching of reading. TESOL Reporter, 6(4), 1–2. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. National Academy Press. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Center for Applied Linguistics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters. Baker, D. L., Basaraba, D. L., Smolkowski, K., Conry, J., Hautala, J., Richardson, U., English, S., & Cole, R. (2017). Exploring the cross-linguistic transfer of reading skills in Spanish to English in the context of a computer adaptive reading intervention. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(2), 222–239. https://doi. org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1309719 Bangura, A. K., & Muo, M. C. (2001). United States congress & bilingual education. Peter Lang.

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

161

Bilingual Education Act. (1968). Public Law 90–247, 81 Stat. 816. Bilingual Education Act. (1974). Public Law 93–380, 88 Stat. 503. Bernhardt, E. B. (1994). A context analysis of reading methods texts: What are we told about the nonnative speaker of English? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 159–189. Borman, T. H., Borman, G. D., Houghton, S., Park, S. J., Zhu, B., Martin, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2019). Addressing literacy needs of struggling Spanish-­ speaking first graders: First-year results from a national randomized controlled trial of Descubriendo la Lectura. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–14. https://doi. org/10.1177/2332858419870488 Brooks, M. D. (2017). How and when did you learn your languages? Bilingual students’ linguistic experiences and literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(4), 383–393. Budiman, A. (2020, August 20). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­ tank/2020/08/20/key-­findings-­about-­u-­s-­immigrants/ Butvilofsky, S. A., Escamilla, K., Gumina, D., & Silva Diaz, E. (2021). Beyond monolingual Reading assessments for emerging bilingual learners: Expanding the understanding of biliteracy assessment through writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.354 Callahan, R., Gautsch, L., Hopkins, M., & Carmen Unda, M. D. (2022). Equity and state immigrant inclusivity: English learner education in ESSA. Educational Policy, 36(5), 1011–1053. Carter, T. P., & Chatfield, M. L. (1986). Effective bilingual schools: Implications for policy and practice. American Journal of Education, 95, 200–232. Castro, D. C., Páez, M. M., Dickinson, D. K., & Frede, E. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in young dual language learners: Research, practice, and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 15–21. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1750-­8606.2010.00142 Cazden, C., & Leggett, E. (1981). Culturally responsive education: Recommendations for achieving Lau remedies II. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 69–86). Newbury House. Cazden, C.  B., John, V.  P., & Hymes, D. (1972). Functions of language in the classroom. Teachers College Columbia University Press. Center for Applied Linguistics. (n.d.). U.S. educational language policy. CAL. Retrieved July 13, 2022, from https://ez.cal.org/areas-of-impact/ language-planning-policy/u.s.-educational-language-policy Ching, D. C. (1976). Reading and the bilingual child. The International Reading Association.

162 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

Coady, M., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. (2011). From preservice to practice: Mainstream elementary teacher beliefs of preparation and efficacy with English language learners in the state of Florida. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(2), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.597823 Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. Teachers College Press. Cohen, S.  A., & Rodriquez, S. (1980). Experimental results that question the Ramirez-Castaneda model for teaching reading to first grade Mexican Americans. The Reading Teacher, 34(1), 12–18. Collie, E. (1993, May). Classroom teachers and their ESL students. In Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association, San Antonio, TX. Crawford, J. (1987, April 1). Bilingual education traces its U.S. roots to the colonial era. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-­ learning/bilingual-­education-­traces-­its-­u-­s-­roots-­to-­the-­colonial-­era/1987/04 de Jong, E. J. (2013). Policy discourses and US language in education policies. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 98–111. Diaz, S., Moll, L. C., & Mehan, H. (1986). Sociocultural resources in instruction: A context-specific approach. In Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 187–230). Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first-and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.1.4 DuBois, D. M. (1979). Getting meaning from print: Four Navajo students. The Reading Teacher, 32(6), 691–695. Ebel, C. W. (1980). An update: Teaching reading to students of English as a second language. The Reading Teacher, 33(4), 403–407. Echevarria, J. (1995). Interactive reading instruction: A comparison of proximal and distal effects of instructional conversations. Exceptional Children, 61, 536–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506100604 Escamilla, K. (2018). Growing up with the bilingual education act: One educator’s journey. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/15235882.2018.1529641 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2015). ESSA Pub. L. 114–95 C.F.R. Faltis, C. J., & Valdéz, G. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguistically diverse classrooms: A Vade Mecum for teacher educators. In D.  Gitomer & C.  Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 549–592). American Educational Research Association. Feeley, J. (1983). Help for the reading teacher: Dealing with the limited English proficient (LEP) child in the elementary classroom. Reading Teacher, 36, 650–655.

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

163

Fisher, J. A. (1972). Dialect, bilingualism, and reading. Proceedings of the 4th IRA World Conference on Reading, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 4(1), 86–95. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners’ cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 145–190. Flores, N. (2016, August 4). What does ESSA mean for ELLs? C-SAIL. Retrieved from https://www.c-­sail.org/resources/blog/what-­does-­essa-­mean-­ells Francis, D., Lesaux, N., & August, D. (2006). Language of instruction. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 365–413). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Galvin, W.  F. (2002). The official Massachusetts information for voters: The 2002 ballot questions. Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth. Retrieved from https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/ifv02.pdf Gándara, P., & Escamilla, K. (2016). Bilingual education in the United States. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1–14). Springer. García, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326. García, O. (2020). Translanguaging and Latinx bilingual readers. The Reading Teacher, 73(5), 557–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1883 García, O., Johnson, S. I., Seltzer, K., & Valdés, G. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon. Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jiménez Caicedo, J. P., & Piedra, A. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 91–110). Routledge. Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English language learners. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Birr Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 684–710). Routledge. Gonzalez, J. E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Programs that prepare teachers to work effectively with students learning English. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED447724. Gorski, P. (2008). The myth of the “culture of poverty”. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 32–36. Gumperz, J. J., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1972). Bilingualism, bidialectalism and classroom interaction. Functions of Language in the Classroom, 1. Hakuta, K. (2020). A policy history of leadership dilemmas in English learner education. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(1), 6–9. Hirsch, E. D. (1983). Cultural literacy. The American Scholar, 52(2), 159–169. Horn, T. D. (1966). Three methods of developing reading readiness in Spanish-­ speaking children in first grade. The Reading Teacher, 20(1), 38–42.

164 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

Hsu, H. (2009). Preparing teachers to teach literacy in responsive ways that capitalize on students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds through weblog technology. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3, 168–181. Kibler, A. K., Walqui, A., & Bunch, G. C. (2015). Transformational opportunities: Language and literacy instruction for English language learners in the common core era in the United States. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 9–35. https://doi. org/10.1002/tesj.133 Kittell, J. E. (1963). Intelligence test performance of children from bilingual environments. The Elementary School Journal, 64(2), 76–83. https://doi. org/10.1086/460098 Lado, R. (1977). Why not start reading earlier? Viewpoints on English as a Second Language, 1977, 8–16. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Leider, C. M., Colombo, M. W., & Nerlino, E. (2021). Decentralization, teacher quality, and the education of English learners: Do state education agencies effectively prepare teachers of ELs? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 100(29), 1–44. Lewis, O. (1961). The children of Sanchez: Autobiography of a Mexican family. Random House. López, F., & Santibanez, L. (2018). Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual students: Implications of evidence for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(36), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.2866 Lucas, T., & Grinberg, J. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 606–636). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group and The Association of Teacher Educators. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/0040584100362661910.108 0/00405841.2013.770327 Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language-minority students: An exploratory study of six high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3), 315–341. Lucas, T., Strom, K., Bratkovich, M., & Wnuk, J. (2018). Inservice preparation for mainstream teachers of English language learners: A review of the empirical literature. The Educational Forum, 82(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00131725.2018.1420852 Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of federal bilingual-education policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508(1), 66–80.

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

165

MacSwan, J., Thompson, M. S., Rolstad, K., McAlister, K., & Lobo, G. (2017). Three theories of the effects of language education programs: An empirical evaluation of bilingual and English-only policies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 218–240. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/0040584100362661910.1037/a0019135 Martin, D., & Smolcic, E. (Eds.). (2019). Redefining teaching competence through immersive programs: Practices for culturally sustaining classrooms. Springer. McField, G. P. (Ed.). (2014). The miseducation of English learners: A tale of three states and lessons to be learned. Information Age. Menken, K. (2010). NCLB and English language learners: Challenges and consequences. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 121–128. https://doi. org/10.1080/00405841003626619 Menken, K., & Antuñez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED455231.pdf Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning. Mitchell, C. (2019, October 23). ‘English-only’ laws in education on verge of extinction. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ teaching-­learning/english-­only-­laws-­in-­education-­on-­verge-­of-­extinction/ 2019/10 Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1992). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge University Press. Morita-Mullaney, T., & Singh, M. (2019). Obscuring English learners from state accountability: The case of Indiana’s language blind policies. Educational Policy, 35(4), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823751 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. U.S. Government Printing Office. National Education Association. (1966). The invisible minority: Report of the NEA Tucson survey of the teaching of Spanish to the Spanish speaking. Author. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-4769). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Necochea, J., & Cline, Z. (2000). Effective educational practices for English language learners within mainstream settings. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 3(3), 317–332.

166 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). (2001). Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425, (2002). Oliveira, A. W., Reis, G., Chaize, D. O., & Snyder, M. A. (2014). Death discussion in science read-alouds: Cognitive, sociolinguistic, and moral processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 117–146. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.21132 Osorio, S.  L. (2020). Building culturally and linguistically sustaining spaces for emergent bilinguals: Using read-alouds to promote translanguaging. The Reading Teacher, 74(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1919 Pappas, C.  C., Varelas, M., Patton, S.  K., Li, Y., & Ortiz, I. (2012). Dialogue strategies in read-alouds of English-language information books in a second-­ grade bilingual classroom. Theory Into Practice, 51(4), 263–272. https://doi. org/10.1080/00405841.2012.726054 Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press. Parla, J., Karnes, M. A., & Ludlam, D. E. (1996). Preservice education integrating multicultural perspectives in the content areas. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 17, 87–101. Pew Research Center. (2015, September 28). Chapter 5: U.S. foreign-born population trends. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/ 2015/09/28/chapter-­5-­u-­s-­foreign-­born-­population-­trends/ Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 159. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­0663.98.1.159 Rojas, P. M. (1965). Instructional materials and aids to facilitate teaching the bilingual child. The Modern Language Journal, 49(4), 237–239. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805278067 Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspective. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0047404517000562 Seltzer, K., & de los Ríos, C. V. (2021). Understanding translanguaging in US literacy classrooms reframing bi-/multilingualism as the norm. Retrieved from https://ncte.org/wp-­content/uploads/2021/04/SquireOfficePolicyBrief_ Translanguaging_April2021.pdf Silverman, R.  D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language and English-only learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 107(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1086/516669 Sizemore, M. (1963). Teaching reading to the bilingual child. Arizona State Department of Public Instruction.

6  A LANGUAGE FOR LITERACY LEARNING: LANGUAGE POLICY… 

167

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002247 Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Restructuring schools for multicultural education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 141–148. Smith, P. (2016). A distinctly American opportunity: Exploring non-standardized English (es) in literacy policy and practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 194–202. Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1988). The bilingual education act: Twenty years later. New Focus, Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 6, 1–10. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED337031.pdf Thomas, W.  P., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. www. ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/resource/effectiveness/index.html. Timothy, S.  M. (1964). The reading problem of a bilingual child. Elementary English, 41(3), 235–237. Torres-Guzmán, M. E. (2011). Methodologies and teacher stances: How do they interact in classrooms? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367005 0.2010.539675 Venezky, R. L. (1970). Nonstandard language and reading. Elementary English, 47(3), 334–345. Wiese, A.  M., & Garcia, E.  E. (1998). The bilingual education act: Language minority students and equal educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(1), 1–18. Willig, A.  C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55(3), 269–317. https:// doi.org/10.3102/00346543055003269 Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Stenhouse Publishers.

Further Reading August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Center for Applied Linguistics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters. Flores, N. (2016, August 4). What does ESSA mean for ELLs? C-SAIL. Retrieved from https://www.c-­sail.org/resources/blog/what-­does-­essa-­mean-­ells

168 

A. N. WARREN AND N. WARD

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press. National Education Association. (1966). The invisible minority: Report of the NEA Tucson Survey of the Teaching of Spanish to the Spanish speaking. Author. Seltzer, K., & de los Ríos, C. V. (2021). Understanding translanguaging in US literacy classrooms reframing bi-/multilingualism as the norm. Retrieved from https://ncte.org/wp-­content/uploads/2021/04/SquireOfficePolicyBrief_ Translanguaging_April2021.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Dear colleague letter: English Learner students and Limited English Proficient parents. Retrieved from https://www2. ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-­el-­201501.pdf Zacher Pandya, J. (2011). Overtested: How high-stakes accountability fails English language learners. Teachers College Press.

CHAPTER 7

How Literacy Policy Shapes Understandings of Teacher Quality: Coaching, Evaluation, and Measures of Teacher Effectiveness Rachael Gabriel

Introduction Expectations for what teachers should know and be able to do have always been a public policy issue from the early iterations of teacher evaluations and supervision to more recent legislative attention to teacher evaluation systems and the roles of instructional coaching, particularly literacy coaches and reading specialists. Research has produced evidence about the impact of teacher quality on student achievement that is based largely on individual teachers’ effects on student reading scores. Varied interpretations of these data, and evolving understandings about what teachers should know and be able to do, and how they should come to know it, have informed policies related to everything from class size to teacher preparation and professional development within and outside the area of reading instruction. Just as third-grade reading scores are the gatekeepers of promotion R. Gabriel (*) Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_7

169

170 

R. GABRIEL

and retention, they are also often the evidence that informs how teachers and teaching are valued, evaluated, and reformed. This chapter engages policies related to teacher knowledge over the past fifty years, outlining their relationship to reading and their impacts on what counts as good instruction. Early Teacher Evaluation and Reading Instruction State and federal legislation was relatively silent on the notion of teacher quality until the turn of the twenty-first century. Before this time, decisions about the quality of teachers or teaching, sometimes known as appraisal, evaluation, or human capital development, were left to local authorities. As such they varied widely in focus and scope, but broadly followed social trends in orientation to teachers’ presumed identities and roles within the community. Interestingly, the trends follow roughly the same trajectory as explanations for reading difficulties, as outlined in the introduction: moving from the general to the specific and from observable or physical indicators to evidence of internal processes. The Moral and Physical  Examples of teachers’ manuals and teacher evaluation systems from the early 1900s include checklists of items related to hemlines, petticoats, and whether and how it is appropriate for teachers to be seen with unmarried men in public (Goldstein, 2015). Teacher quality was related to the morality portrayed by the educator as well as the cleanliness and order of their physical classroom. Teachers were considered to be high quality if they carried themselves as upstanding community members according to the norms and morals of the time and community, and if their classrooms were orderly in appearance and in activity.  In the decades that saw the first and second world wars, educational testing, including IQ testing and achievement testing, emerged as a field of study that allowed educators to measure students’ aptitude as well as the outcomes of their education. Around the same time, readability formulas were developed for each branch of the military to ensure that enlisted men would be able to read field manuals and the like. Together, these innovations in measurement created space to consider the quality of instruction in terms other than control of student behavior or compliance with cultural norms.

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

171

From Being to Doing  In 1967, Bond and Dykstra conducted what has become a landmark publication based on the results of a comprehensive study of beginning reading instruction. What became known as “the first-­ grade studies” is actually a collection of twenty-seven studies that include data collected over three years. It had three core research questions: whether pupil, teacher, class, school, or community variables were related to student achievement; which approaches to reading and spelling produced superior results; and whether any program is uniquely supportive of pupils with either high or low readiness for reading. This set of studies was the first to link observations of classroom practices to student achievement and is often cited as evidence that teachers, rather than materials, matter most to student achievement. They wrote: “To improve reading instruction, it is necessary to train better teachers of reading rather than to expect a panacea in the form of methods and materials” (p.  416). Bond and Dykstra found that classrooms that integrated phonics with reading for meaning were far superior to those that focused on one or the other. They further concluded that “reading readiness” (pre-reading skills) was not a useful construct for predicting achievement, noting that “reading achievement is influenced by factors peculiar to school systems over and above differences in pre-reading capabilities” (pp. 121–122). Bond and Dykstra’s work has been used to rationalize professional development efforts, curricular reforms, and to highlight the importance of teachers as the key variable in student achievement for over fifty years. However, the study did not uncover which specific teacher characteristics or actions were related to student achievement, only that the teacher’s choices about what to teach, when, and how mattered. From Doing to Knowing The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1967 included provisions for additional reading teachers to provide pull-out, compensatory reading instruction to students who attended high-poverty schools. This was the first mention of what is now known as a reading or literacy specialist in policy, but neither the role was defined in great detail, nor were the qualifications. Divided into six titles (sections), ESEA funded additional teachers in Title I, books and school libraries in Title II, and teacher professional development in Title IV. The implicit message was that teachers with more professional knowledge are more effective at teaching reading. During this time, while some researchers elaborated and debated approaches to reading instruction (see Chall, 1967), others worked to understand teacher quality in the context of reading instruction.  Landmark research in the early 1970s highlighted the impact and importance of

172 

R. GABRIEL

everyday classroom interactions and thus created a framework for focusing on teacher quality as a way to improve schools and student achievement. Ethnomethodologists, like Hugh Mehan and Courtney Cazden, chronicled the moment-by-moment interactions of teachers and students in classrooms, recorded Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings and special education settings, and showed how consequential teachers’ everyday talk and interaction with students could be. Cazden’s (2001) analyses of classroom discourse were a demonstration of the intersection of cognitive and social dimensions of classrooms: how social interactions relate to student learning, not only because talk is the medium for instruction in classrooms, but because it is often the most observable feature of both teaching and learning in action. Mehan’s (1987) year-long ethnomethodological study of a first-grade classroom similarly detailed the patterns and norms of interaction, how they were established, when and how they might be interrupted, and how talk was used to maintain the social order of schooling. His 1986 study of special education processes (Mehan et al., 1986) was an equally fine-grained analysis of decision-making about students’ educational careers, explaining how talk was used to construct students as capable or handicapped. He demonstrated how the discourse of decision-making meetings not only described, but also shaped or constructed students’ very identities and the ways they were positioned to learn or to struggle in school settings. This expanded understandings of the source and nature of reading difficulties beyond simple assessments of skill and inferences about cognition or intelligence. It also emphasizes the importance of teachers’ understandings of students as individuals within an education system. In the early 1980s Shirley Bryce Heath continued the tradition of micro-level analyses of talk by studying the language of homes and classrooms in two culturally different communities. Her book, Ways with Words, demonstrated the differences in home and school language and the ways that race and culture influenced classroom interactions. This line of research united the social and cultural understandings of literacy development in the same way that Cazden united social and cognitive understandings, with language mediating, influencing, and constructing literacy learning at home and at school. Teacher quality could now be understood as evidenced in and shaped by classroom interactions rather than “inputs” like qualifications or years of experience, or “outputs” like student test scores.

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

173

Taken together, the work of ethnographers and ethnomethodologists of the 1970s and 1980s reinforced the importance of observational studies and identified some of the patterned ways that classroom discourse unfolded to create opportunities for learning and identities as learners. Within reading research in particular, researchers engaged in extensive observations of classrooms in order to understand how students and their teachers interacted, spent time, and engaged with text and talk (see Chap. 3 for a discussion on this). At this point, research on teacher quality had entered what is known as the “process-product” era in teacher and school effectiveness research, in which researchers studied quality in terms of the teacher’s observable actions, behaviors or practices, and the achievement associated with them (Berliner, 2005). For example, in 1977, Richard Allington published a study of classroom processes with the memorable title “If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good?” In it he described students’ exposure to print in classrooms where teachers had identified them as struggling or in need of remedial or corrective instruction. As described in Chap. 4, this study was foundational to understanding cumulative disadvantage, and it directly implicated teachers as the key factor in determining whether students had opportunities to develop literacy in school or not. A reprise of this article appeared thirty years later when incentives to focus on test preparation often threatened an increase in skills instruction and decrease in time spent reading (Allington, 2009). Multiple large-scale studies attempted to identify the behaviors that led to greater student achievement in general and within specific academic domains such as reading or language arts. In their review of process-­ product research, Brophy and Good (1986) concluded that some of the most salient processes were related to student success (the degree to which students experience success in a lesson): time spent on specific tasks and the pacing of lessons to maximize this time. Thus upholding Allington’s earlier finding that teachers’ use of time and text mattered significantly when it came to opportunities to learn. But what made some teachers pace their lessons differently, organize activity differently, and respond to student needs? Even as debates roiled about approaches to reading instruction, it was clear that individual teacher decisions were important for optimizing students’ opportunities to learn. If teacher decision-making is of paramount importance, then so is a teacher’s individual knowledge base for teaching. However, during the same

174 

R. GABRIEL

time period, a very different understanding of teaching and learning processes was driving school reform at the state and national levels. Standards for Teachers and Teaching As a result of increasing global economic competition, and the loss of jobs to countries where lower wages were acceptable, governors across the U.S. united in a commitment to reform schools in order to ensure better outcomes that would support a more skilled, professional workforce. Using accountability models from business management sectors, they proposed to hold schools accountable for outcomes and give them greater freedom in how they spent their funding. Up until this point, funding was the primary way government interacted with schooling. Now, governors proposed to hold schools accountable for “outputs” and needed a measure by which to understand these outputs. This marked the birth of the standards movement in education, which included not only standards for learning, but also standards for teaching.  Throughout the 1980s, the standards movement in education found its way into teacher preparation and professional teaching. In 1986, a pair of reports focused on what teachers should know and be able to do were published, and shortly thereafter, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was established. The first of these reports, the report of the Holmes Group, was the result of a collaboration between deans of various schools of education that gathered to create a new model for investing in teacher knowledge and professionalizing the profession of teaching. The report focused on the creation of five-year master’s degree programs that allowed beginning teachers to start their careers with a master’s degree, thus bringing increased knowledge to the work of teaching from the start. Also in 1986, Lee Shulman, a researcher at Stanford University, coined the term “Pedagogical Content Knowledge” (PCK) to indicate the unique set of knowledge that emerges when teachers understand not only content and pedagogy, but how these interact for teaching and learning. This created interest in not just knowing or doing, but knowing how to do the work of teaching particular content. It interrupted the assumption that teachers’ knowledge of phonics was enough to ensure the teaching of phonics by theorizing the importance of understanding the pedagogical implications of particular content. This construct formed the backbone of standards for preservice teachers (e.g., Interstate Teachers Assessment and

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

175

Support Consortium, INTASC) and professional standards, which form the assessment framework for National Board Certification. A commonly cited white paper from the American Federation of Teachers, written by Louisa Moats, carried the memorable title “Reading Is Rocket Science.” It attempted to outline the contributions of linguistics and psychology to understandings of early literacy skills and emphasized the significant content for teachers of early literacy. A slightly updated version was republished 20 years later (Moats, 2020), thus marking a return to skills-focused practices and to a diagnostic frame that focused on teachers’ knowledge of phonics instruction as the explanation for patterns in student growth and achievement. While state policy was focusing on standards and reform, the process-­ product perspective on effective teaching of reading was still evident in a set of studies focused on effective schools and accomplished or exemplary teachers, conducted by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) in the 1990s (c.f. Taylor et  al., 1999; Pressley et al., 2001; Allington & Johnston, 2001). Among other things, studies collected observational data about the use of time and nature of instruction in the classrooms of highly successful first- and fourth-grade teachers, and found that teachers viewed as exemplary routinely spent more time engaging their students in reading and writing than their colleagues deemed typical or underperforming. The importance of time on task and task engagement is considered hallmark findings of the process-product research tradition (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2015). The exemplary teacher studies demonstrated that teachers in the same school had significant variation in classroom processes, thus demonstrating once again that teacher actions directly impact student achievement. However, a policy focus on teacher effects was nearly a decade away. From Knowing to Showing The 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was built on emerging evidence of the importance of what individual teachers know and can do and required specific qualifications as evidence of teacher quality. By boldly proclaiming that every student deserved a “highly qualified teacher,” NCLB raised expectations for the degrees, licenses, and certifications required to teach. In addition, it provided embedded professional support and development for teachers working in the lowest-performing schools by placing literacy coaches in each school under the Reading First initiative. According to

176 

R. GABRIEL

Bean and Wilson (1981), the concept of a reading specialist dates back to the 1930s, when some educators focused on teaching reading in particular and sometimes supporting other educators to improve their teaching of reading. As literature on job-embedded mentoring began to accumulate in the 1960s, the concept of coaching began to take hold in schools, and the coaching aspects of a specialist’s role often increased in time and/or importance. Though Reading First coaches were the first to consistently be called “reading coaches,” or “literacy coaches,” the role of a reading specialist has always had some split between supporting students and supporting teachers. Historically, as is still true now, the emphasis varies across contexts (Bean & Wilson, 1981; Ippolito et al., 2021).  The implication of having a reading specialist or coach is that there is a specialized knowledge base associated with the teaching of reading over and above what a typical classroom teacher can and should be expected to know. In 2003, the International Reading Association (now the International Literacy Association) created standards for reading professionals and included standards specifically for specialists that went above and beyond regular classroom teacher expectations. According to the International Literacy Association, becoming a specialist or coach typically requires “the equivalent of 21–27 graduate semester hours in reading, language arts, and related courses” above and beyond a teacher’s initial licensure because these specialized professionals can “provide essential leadership for the school’s entire literacy program.” These standards have been revised approximately every seven years since and are currently in their third iteration. In addition to the NBPTS standards, ILA’s domain-specific standards articulate what teachers should “know and be able to do” in order to teach reading. Therefore, teacher preparation programs were accredited based on their alignment to ILA standards, and a degree in reading, or degree containing coursework in reading was used as evidence that a teacher is highly qualified. As a policy strategy, NCLB was the apex of the accountability movement. It used a “stick and carrot” mechanism for rewarding districts that showed growth on required tests and requiring compliance with a set of standardized reforms for those that did not. This reward, measurement, punishment structure was more aggressive than previous federal laws, which used targeted funding to encourage specific shifts and changes. It was also more aggressive than state accountability policies which rarely had consequences attached to disappointing outcomes. Under NCLB, however, schools that did not demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP)

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

177

had to inform parents, provide tutoring, and sometimes accept a prescribed curriculum, set of assessments, and cadre of coaches. This framing of teacher quality as a policy problem was less concerned with individual teachers’ uses of time, talk, or text like research of the decades before; or in what they knew from hours of coursework or professional development time like the state-level policies of the decades preceding 2001. Instead, the Reading First initiative invested in the idea that specific curriculum, supported by coaches, would bolster the quality of instruction enough to increase outcomes. The idea that curriculum is a key lever for instructional improvement dates back to the Bond and Dykstra study of the 1950s that highlighted the primacy of teachers rather than instructional materials. Indeed, with past as prologue, a national study of the impact of Reading First as a policy strategy concluded that it failed to achieve its stated goals of increasing student achievement in reading and, in some cases, was associated with a decrease in student achievement (Gamse et al., 2008). Despite its consistent failure as a policy strategy, the assumption that materials and coaches can increase teacher quality would circle back again within twenty years— this time in state policy. New-Generation Teacher Evaluation Just as innovations in imaging technology created opportunities for understandings of reading difficulties to evolve, innovations in statistical tools and approaches also created room for understandings of teacher quality to evolve. NCLB ushered in an era of standards-based accountability at the federal level, but many of the individual programs were discontinued or disgraced by the time the Obama administration launched any major education initiatives (c.f. Olsen, 2007; Garon, 2013). Unlike the accountability-­ focused strategy of NCLB, with its focus on outputs, rewards, and punishments, Race to the Top (RTTT) was a competition for an infusion of funding that rewarded those who agreed to implement specific improvement strategies but did not require anything of states that opted out of the competition. In this way it was a middle ground between ESEA’s history as a funding mechanism that directed funds toward federal priorities and NCLB’s departure as an accountability system with built-in rewards for states meeting priorities. RTTT incentivized states to develop a new generation of teacher evaluation system that redefined what counted as teacher quality in fundamental ways.

178 

R. GABRIEL

The legacy of NCLB was not only the tools and routines for frequent standardized testing, but also longitudinal data from standardized testing over time. The combination of new infrastructure for storing and maintaining longitudinal data systems, and advances in statistics like the development of value-added measurements (VAMs) created opportunities for policymakers and others to imagine that teachers could be measured based on student growth without introducing significant bias or confounding factors (Gabriel & Lester, 2013a, b; Amrein-Beardsley, 2014). Though the validity and utility of most measures of teacher effectiveness in general, and VAMs in particular, were largely oversold, understandings of teacher quality shifted from being defined by qualifications to being measured by teacher effects on student achievement. In some ways, this represented a return to the thinking of the 1950s when Bond and Dykstra first demonstrated that individual teachers differentially impacted student outcomes regardless of materials or approaches used. In other ways, the 2009 formulation of teacher effectiveness was uniquely modern in its use of standardized test scores and logics of accountability (Gabriel & Woulfin, 2017). Measuring Teacher Effects  One of the ways that researchers, and later policymakers, balanced the inherent error and bias within measures of teacher effectiveness like VAMs or Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) was to combine measures of student growth or achievement with observation ratings. Unfortunately, both had a narrowing impact on what counted as good reading instruction. Understanding teacher quality as a teacher’s effect on student growth or achievement means understanding quality in direct relationship to a standardized test score—or, put differently, defines teacher quality as the ability to generate high test scores. This both implicitly and explicitly incentivizes test preparation, instruction targeting tested topics, test-taking strategies, and the time before testing regardless of its relationship to literacy development. When measured by teacher effects, teacher quality is limited to what and how reading is tested. When it comes to formal observation for the purposes of high-stakes teacher evaluations, generic checklists and observation rubrics that can be applied to all grades and content areas became popular because they allowed administrators to hold all teachers to the same set of expectations. However, the nature of literacy instruction varies significantly across the lifespan, and therefore no single set of indicators captures quality in a kindergarten, fifth-, and eleventh-grade lesson with equal adequacy. As Sarah Woulfin

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

179

and I demonstrated in our comparison of tools for teacher evaluation, indicators on generic rubrics were, at times, both too vague and too specific to capture or direct evaluators’ attention and feedback toward evidence-­based practices for teaching reading (Gabriel & Woulfin, 2017). For a time, there seemed to be promise in using subject-specific evaluation tools to measure teacher effectiveness and to generate useful feedback for educators. The Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) rubric developed by Grossman and colleagues at Stanford in the early 2010s had a stronger correlation with student achievement measures, especially those that tap higher-order skills, than any generic rubric designed for teacher evaluation (Grossman et al., 2013). However, as the liabilities and practicalities associated with large-scale teacher evaluation reform deemphasized fine-tuning measures of effective teaching, and concerns about holding teachers to similarly high standards, this possibility became less and less probable. Instead, states often adopted ready-made tools, rather than waiting for those still under development, with accompanying suites of professional development options and rater training tools. Various iterations of the Framework for Teaching, Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS), or the Teacher Advancement Program became popular choices within state frameworks. During this time, research on teacher quality was focused more on teaching quality, as individual teacher characteristics were largely ruled out as predictive variables in models for teacher effects on student achievement. Though there were some experimental methods for estimating teacher quality, the most innovative was built on a simple observation system aimed at examining interactions between students and instruction (c.f. Connor et al., 2009). Building on the contributions of research from the ethnomethodologists and process-product researchers, Connor and colleagues created a system for observing beginning literacy instruction that focused on students’ interactions with instruction. Instructional interactions may involve the teacher directly, or may be between students, or between a student and a given text or task. Either way the nature and quality of those interactions can be used to estimate the impact of instruction on student growth in literacy and to coach teachers to reorganize instruction to optimize individual students’ opportunities to learn. This return to build on earlier findings in research has a parallel in policy in the late 2010s. However, as seen across policy issues discussed in this volume, old priorities and strategies have reemerged despite their past failures.

180 

R. GABRIEL

Teacher Quality Goes Back to the Future In the decade after Race to the Top, complexities in the evaluation of effective teaching continued to plague implementation efforts, and many states tempered and revised initial proposals for large-scale evaluation efforts. As a result, the policies that created new-generation teacher evaluation systems failed to significantly improve teaching or learning, and associated measures of effective teaching failed to impact achievement or equity on a grand scale. However, the public had a renewed interest and understanding of the primacy of teacher effects on student achievement. A landmark white paper on the subject, memorably titled, “The Widget Effect” (Weisberg et  al., 2009), had been used to explain how teachers were viewed as generic widgets in an educational machine because they were never evaluated or individually developed. In fact, many educators were rarely, if ever, evaluated in their roles as classroom teachers. This made the media and public suspicious of teacher quality in general. Since it was hard to measure quality as an effect on achievement, the next rounds of state and federal policy reverted to an emphasis on tests of teacher knowledge. Over the 2010s, states across the country added licensure exams specific to reading, in order to ensure preservice teachers entered the profession with adequate content and pedagogical content knowledge. Some states, including Connecticut, required in-service teachers to take this test and required districts to match professional development plans to individual or aggregate score reports. The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), formed in 2000 with the renewed emphasis on qualifications, had long issued annual reports on the state of teacher preparation programs but shifted toward reports on specific aspects of teacher preparation, including literacy. This included reviews of the textbooks used, program emphasis on foundational skills, and, finally, program alignment with the science of reading (SOR) (c.f. Putman & Walsh, 2021). The explicit framing of NCTQ’s work and related lobbying efforts is that teacher preparation does not provide the requisite knowledge for adequate reading instruction. That knowledge is focused on beginning reading skills, specifically those that were the focus of Moat’s “Reading Is Rocket Science” argument from the turn of the millennium. In an effort to create a set of standards and tools for program accreditation that more closely monitor content knowledge related to foundational skills, the International

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

181

Dyslexia Association (IDA) came out with its own standards for teachers and specialists, as well as a standardized test of professional knowledge. This emphasis on foundational knowledge and skill instruction is also evident in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, the (latest) fiftieth anniversary reauthorization of ESEA. Though ESSA primarily allows states to make decisions about funding, accountability, and priorities, it drops the terms “scientifically-based reading research” or “evidence-­ based practice” and uses “explicit, systematic and intentional” as descriptors for all literacy instruction. This set of terms is most closely associated with IDA’s definition of Structured Literacy, which is most often expressed with “explicit” and “systematic” as the first two adjectives in a list that also often includes “multisensory” and “diagnostic-prescriptive” among other terms. This implies an expectation that states will ensure Structured Literacy approaches will be used in schools. It is also not clear whether a new set of standards for and assessments of teacher knowledge will impact students in any meaningful way. Nevertheless, teacher knowledge is not the only priority that has enjoyed a recent reprisal. There has also been a return to an emphasis on both curricular materials and coaching in state policy. The difference in the early 2020s is that materials are not being rated based on whether they included a skills- or meaning-focus, as they were in the 1950s; or a code- or meaning-­focus as they were in the 1990s; or whether they are standards-­ aligned or research-based as they were in the early 2000s. Instead, they are mostly rated based on whether and how they address the foundational skills (e.g., whether it is explicit, systematic, and/or meets other criteria that vary minimally across states). As Northrop has pointed out in Chap. 5, this is in large part due to Hanford’s reporting (c.f. Hanford, 2018), which cast significant doubt on the knowledge and preparation of teachers, while positing the primacy of phonics instruction as a panacea for students with reading difficulties and schools with low reading achievement. In many ways, the 2020s have begun with a return to old policy strategies, or even narrowing twist on past policy. The majority of states are considering SOR-inspired legislation with diagnostic frames focused squarely on teachers’ preparation, knowledge, and curricular tools, and prognostic frames focused on standards on teacher preparation and development, coaching on teacher quality and student achievement, and additional licensure requirements for teachers (Pondiscio, 2020). Therefore, it builds on a policy and research record with mixed results. Though there is evidence to suggest each of these could be related to student achievement,

182 

R. GABRIEL

there is also evidence from past policy efforts that they do not have the desired impacts on achievement or equity. Within research, the trajectory of foci has been a bit more linear than circular. Researchers continued to build on the observational studies of the 1950s with the ethnomethodological and process-product studies of the next few decades. In the early 2000s, further investigations of the roles of context, community, and language characterized much of the field, as did an increasing recognition that race, and language, culture, disability status, sexual and gender identity, and other identity markers are all mediating factors in student-instruction interactions. For example, whereas a 30-year retrospective analysis of literacy research publications from 1999 called for “more integrative reviews and qualitative studies, including special populations, varied ethnic and cultural groups, and second-language learners” (Guzzetti et al., 1999), a 2016 retrospective found an expansion in themes, perspectives, populations, and methodologies used in the field (Parsons et  al., 2020). It highlighted an expansion of sociocultural and critical perspectives characterized as “paradigmatic expansion” (Parsons, et al., 2020, p. 359). As our understandings of literacy itself, literacy development, and the teaching and learning that facilitate it continue to develop, policies related to the quality of teachers, teaching, and learning currently seem regressive and lacking in evidence. However, the history of such policies is short, thus there is hope that a steadier arc toward progress may still emerge. Fifty-five years on from ESEA, a new approach is required, one that prioritizes prevention of reading difficulties through high-quality classroom interactions and one that draws on the sciences of teacher development to build educator capacity for the ever-expanding work of supporting the growth of a continuously changing population.

Discussion Questions 1. When curricula are scripted and/or pacing guides are tightly prescriptive, teachers are making fewer decisions about what is taught, when, and how. In these cases, should curriculum itself, or the leaders that select the curriculum, be held accountable for its outcomes? 2. What outcomes besides scores from standardized tests of growth and achievement could be used to evaluate the quality of instruction? 3. Who (what individuals and entities) is responsible for ensuring the continuous development of individual teachers?

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

183

4. What might be different if teacher preparation followed the model of the trades with apprenticeships and union-led professional development?

References Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57–61. Allington, R. L. (2009). If they don’t read much... 30 years later. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 30–54). Guilford. Allington, R.  L., & Johnston, P.  H. (2001). What do we know about effective fourth grade teachers and their classrooms? In C.  Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the research agenda (pp. 150–165). International Reading Association. Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: Critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. Taylor & Francis. Berliner, D. C. (2005). The place of process-product research in developing the agenda for research on teacher thinking. In Teacher thinking and professional action (pp. 3–15). Routledge. Bean, R., & Wilson, R. (1981). Effective change in school reading programs: The resource role. International Literacy Association. Bond, G.  L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-­ grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5–142. https:// doi.org/10.2307/746948 Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). McMillan. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann. Chall, J. S., & City University of New York, & Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate; an inquiry into the science, art, and ideology of old and new methods of teaching children to read, 1910-1965. McGraw-Hill. Connor, C.  M., Morrison, F.  J., Fishman, B.  J., Ponitz, C.  C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P. S., Piasta, S. B., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C. (2009). The ISI classroom observation system: Examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 85–99. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332373 Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2015). Process-product research: A cornerstone in educational effectiveness research. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 50(2), 107–119.

184 

R. GABRIEL

Gabriel, R., & Lester, J. N. (2013a). The romance quest of education reform: A discourse analysis of the LA times’ reports on value-added measurement teacher effectiveness. Teachers’ College Record, 115(12), 1–32. Gabriel, R., & Lester, J. N. (2013b) Sentinels of trust: The discursive construction of value-added measurement in policy conversations. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 20(9). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1165 Gabriel, R., & Woulfin, S. (2017). Reading and dyslexia legislation: The confluence of parallel policies. In J.  Lester, C.  Lochmiller, & R.  Gabriel (Eds.), Discursive perspectives on education policy and implementation. Palgrave. Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading first impact study: Interim report (NCEE 2008-4016). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Garon, I. (2013, October 21). Lessons in deception: A decade after implementation, NCLB ‘safety net’ yields fraud and misuse. EdWeek. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-­lessons-­in-­deception-­a-­decade-­ after-­implementation-­nclb-­safety-­net-­yields-­fraud-­and-­misuse/2013/10 Goldstein, D. (2015). The teacher wars: A history of America’s most embattled profession. Anchor. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119, 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1086/669901 Guzzetti, B., Anders, P. L., & Neuman, S. (1999). Thirty years of JRB/JLR: A retrospective of reading/literacy research. Journal of Literacy Research, 31(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969909548037 Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APM reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmreports. org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-­w ords-­w hy-­a merican-­k ids-­a rent-­ being-­taught-­to-­read Ippolito, J., Swan Dagen, A., & Bean, R. M. (2021). Elementary literacy coaching in 2021: What we know and what we wonder. The Reading Teacher, 75(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2046 Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Decision making in students’ educational careers. Stanford University Press. Mehan, H. (1987). Language and power in organizational process. Discourse Processes, 10(4), 291–301. Moats, L. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science 2020: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf

7  HOW LITERACY POLICY SHAPES UNDERSTANDINGS OF TEACHER… 

185

Olsen, L. (2007, May 1). DIBELS involved in ‘Reading first’ controversies. EdWeek. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-­learning/ dibels-­involved-­in-­reading-­first-­controversies/2007/05 Parsons, S., Gallagher, M. A., Leggett, A. B., Ives, S. T., & Lague, M. (2020). An analysis of 15 journals’ literacy content, 2007–2016. Journal of Literacy Research, 52(3), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X20939551 Pondiscio, R. (2020). Focus on early literacy: Common curriculum and better teacher training. Sketching a new conservative education agenda. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED610309.pdf Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C.  C., & Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first grades. Guilford. Putman, H., & Walsh, K. (2021). State of the states 2021: Teacher preparation policy. National Council on Teacher Quality. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X015002004 Taylor, B., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Walpole, S. (1999). Beating the odds in teaching all children to read (Report No. 2006). Center for the Improvement of Early Reading. Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project.

Further Reading Bond, G.  L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-­ grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5–142. https:// doi.org/10.2307/746948 Connor, C. (2014). Individualized teaching in beginning reading. Evidence-Based Education 6(3), 4–7. Retrieved from https://isilearn.net/wp-­content/ uploads/2014/04/Better-­Autumn-­2014-­3-­7.pdf Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading first impact study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008–4016). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Nordstrum, L. E., LeMahieu, P. G., & Berrena, E. (2017). Implementation science: Understanding and finding solutions to variation in program implementation. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 58–73. https://doi. org/10.1108/QAE-­12-­2016-­0080 Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project.

CHAPTER 8

Conclusion: Influence and Evidence in Reading-Related Policy Rachael Gabriel and Shannon Kelley

What Informs Reading Policy? DellaVecchia’s analysis of third-grade retention policies serves as a reminder that even in this era of devolution to the states, education policy is rarely local policy. What seem 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 increasingly apparent (c.f. Matthews, 2018; Reckhow & Snyder, 2014). This trend is part of a larger movement aimed at privatizing public education (Strauss, 2021; Burch, 2020; Barkan, 2018).

R. Gabriel (*) Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. Kelley Literacy Studies, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9_8

187

188 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

Over the seven years since the enactment of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states have passed surprisingly similar reading-related policies in a short period of time (Gabriel, 2021) because advocacy groups receive talking points from centralized associations and can therefore mobilize quickly, if not simultaneously. Similar or simultaneous activity across states garners more media attention than it might if each state had a different education issue on its agenda. While diagnostic and prognostic frames accumulate authority through frequent repetition, motivational frames are reinforced by other state’s examples. For example, Michigan may consider a Science of Reading bill and point to the states that passed something similar as evidence of the need to catch up. Tennessee may pass a bill related to reading instruction with language almost identical to that used in a bill from Florida. Legislators in Connecticut may be met with record numbers of speakers at public hearings for a dyslexia bill because of the rapid networking made possible by local chapters of national organizations. The role of research evidence in these activities is minimal because information and ideas about policies travel at a pace that is foreign to the research enterprise. In fact, many current laws reference the decades-old findings of the National Reading Panel (NRP) as the evidence for their focus on basic skills. Original research unfolds over months and years, not within a single legislative session, or even one legislator’s term. Even reviews or summaries of existing research require a significant amount of time when conducted by researchers skilled at collecting, considering, and weighing all available evidence. When researchers are invited to prepare reports and white papers, as with the National Reading Panel, they tend to take years, rather than months, because they engage with complexity, rather than ignoring it in favor of a simpler less inclusive account. And researchers often struggle to come to consensus even at publication, as shown by the “minority view” Joanne Yatvin wrote to accompany the National Reading Panel Report. The 36-page summary of the NRP Report, prepared by lobbyists, described a simple set of conclusions that was a poor-match for the complexity of the more than 500-page report with minority views attached (Garan, 2001). In contrast, white papers, reports, and sets of talking points or legislative priorities are often written by analysts at think tanks and foundations at a pace much more attuned to the work of policymaking. These

8  CONCLUSION: INFLUENCE AND EVIDENCE IN READING-RELATED POLICY 

189

documents do not require the consensus of professionals with highly cultivated and unique perspectives. They also do not require peer-review, or consensus-building, before publication. They are simpler and faster in terms of form, production process, and function. As shown across issues described in this volume, white papers and reports have long had an outsized impact on policy and public opinion. The pace of production, and relative simplicity of the product, is not the only reason that white papers drive policy more often than peer-­ reviewed research. First, the genre of report-writing is not subject to the same tempering that peer-reviewed research requires. There is no need to disclose positionality, the limitations of evidence, or degree of certainty. Statements can be made bluntly and with authority. Second, papers are often commissioned by sponsors who will also sponsor their wide and strategic dissemination. Peer-reviewed research is often locked behind pay walls and has limited circulation outside of academia. Though social media can sometimes foster connections between the findings of research and a wider public audience, a well-funded white paper will travel farther, faster, and with the opportunity to have a larger impact on a wider audience. Despite these structural challenges, however, there is still a role and responsibility for peer-reviewed research in the policymaking process.

The Importance of Policy Evidence As Warren and Ward discuss in Chap. 6, research often follows policy rather than the other way around, as researchers work to understand or compare the impact of different policy environments. However, findings from this work are often off-pace with reauthorization or revision. The exception to this general trend is evaluation studies of particular programs. Several evaluation and impact studies have led to revisions and roll-backs of policies at the state and federal levels. For example, the Reading First Impact Study (Gamse et al., 2008) effectively ended the program when it found billions had been spent with no meaningful improvement in achievement on average. Likewise, the Response to Intervention Impact Study (Balu et al., 2015) has led many to question the structure of many local multi-tier systems of support (MTSS) programs, though there has been no large-­scale roll-back of policy or new guidance for restructuring. Requiring state-funded evaluations of new policy is one way to create a feedback loop for policymakers to learn from the impact of their decisions. Still, several factors could derail the logical suggestion that policymakers

190 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

attend to research evidence about policy strategies. First, policymakers may be interested in evidence, but they are also influenced by lobbyists and funders that filter information and exert pressure in particular directions. Policies are never considered in isolation but, as Kingdon (1984) noted, in confluence with politics and concurrent policies that shape and limit what counts as feasible, desirable, and useful at any given time. This is why the impact of policies should always be evaluated, not only in terms of budgets, but also, as Frankel has argued, in terms of the impact on youth experiences and opportunities. In addition, there are multiple ways in which research could potentially inform policy besides offering support for a particular change idea or prognostic frame. Research on policy implementation, school change, teacher professional learning, and curriculum use could quickly and reliably inform policy because these findings are somewhat less bifurcated, nuanced, and contradictory than those found in research on early literacy instruction. For example, the idea that it takes around three years to fully implement a new curriculum is commonly accepted among researchers and could inform the design of scale-up, accountability, and implementation plans for new policies. Likewise, the idea that professional learning opportunities should be long term, job embedded, and content focused has long been accepted within the field. However, policies routinely require that schools and districts change curricula and interrupt long-term professional learning strategies with multiple other mandates. If it is not possible to efficiently and meaningfully inform the target of policy, the policy process should attempt to adhere to the agreed-upon evidence base for implementation, development, and school improvement. Accountability for Policy Outcomes Rather than only holding teachers or schools accountable for student outcomes, the vendors of educational tools such as curriculum, remediation programs, and assessments and data management software should be held accountable for the promises of their products. If a screener is supposed to accurately identify students at risk for reading difficulties, but routinely over- and or under-identifies them, there should be a penalty—especially when state law limits schools from seeking contracts with other providers, thus eliminating the natural market force associated with an underperforming product. Likewise, if curricular materials are difficult to use, or do not routinely facilitate high-quality, culturally sustaining, standards-­ aligned

8  CONCLUSION: INFLUENCE AND EVIDENCE IN READING-RELATED POLICY 

191

lessons across a school or district, these companies should be held accountable—especially if it may be a decade or more before a school can adopt an alternative curriculum to use. The familiar policy tools of evidence and accountability can be put to work for teachers and students, but they will need to be redirected toward vendors and policymakers as well. As described above, much of existing policy has been aimed at what teachers know, do and impact, and has focused on teachers’ accountability for their work. The next step in policy strategy must engage the infrastructures that facilitate teaching and learning (Woulfin & Gabriel, 2020). Infrastructure includes leadership that sends focused, coherent messages about priorities, tools, and routines for schools and districts. It also includes curricular materials that not only are aligned to grade-level standards but also demonstrate coherence across content areas, grades, and resources so that assessments are aligned to curriculum, and curriculum materials are aligned to each other. Too often, instruction is a patchwork of tools and materials from a range of places, either because teachers are responsible for coming up with their own or because school/district policies require teachers to engage with several layers of mandates, each accomplished using tools adopted at different times for different reasons. Rather than asking first-grade teachers to use a different program or set of resources for spelling than they do for grammar, or writing, or reading or literature, or social-emotional learning, curricular materials need to be aligned and coherent to optimize their appropriate use. Professional development is another element, or pillar, of infrastructure that could be a target of policy as well as an explanation for uneven patterns of implementation and/or success. This attention to infrastructure often requires the flexibility of local policies to be used to achieve state or national objectives in order to support varied contexts in responding to a shared goal.

Expanding Conceptualizations of Reading Policy is necessarily a blunt instrument designed to address broad concerns in ways that make sense to a variety of stakeholders in multiple contexts. As evidenced throughout the chapters in this volume, the definition of reading and accompanying implications for its teaching has become increasingly narrow in both federal and state policies over the past 50 years. This is in contrast to the growing research base on reading development and instruction which illustrates that reading proficiency develops differently for each student and differently in different contexts (e.g., Cromley

192 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

& Azevedo, 2007). This research suggests that students’ individual developmental reading differences can be fixed or dynamic (i.e., influenced by text and task), developmental only, or reflections of instruction or institutional environments. Despite good intentions of grassroots organizations and policymakers to construct singular solutions to students’ reading needs, current reading policies conceptualize reading and reading difficulty in limited ways that largely fail to address nuances in individual school contexts or students, including accounting for the way historical inequities have shaped access to education in general and literacy in particular. As the research base on reading processes and instructional best practices grows, literacy policy and practices can be enhanced by expanding definitions of reading, reading difficulty and its etiology, and the approaches we use to enhance reading outcomes. By expanding the concept of reading in policy, research, and practice, we can better account for variation in reading development, without narrowing opportunities or pathologizing differences. For example, if successful reading instruction were conceptualized by metrics beyond the standardized test scores of third graders, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners might move from evaluating students and teachers to considering how contextual factors like access to engaging and culturally relevant texts, individualized instruction, and school climate affect student reading outcomes. Such a change would facilitate more comprehensive investigations into the multitude of factors that affect students’ reading outcomes. Classroom-level effects, often assumed to be teacher effects, may be the largest school-based contributor to student achievement, but they are not the only contributors (Opper, 2019). Moreover, classroom-level effects are not limited to the teacher’s knowledge or actions. Expanded accounts of what affects students’ reading development would create possibilities for policymakers and educators to work with more targeted and effective prognostic frames. Moreover, if ESSA’s definition of comprehensive literacy instruction (see Chap. 4) was expanded to include culturally, linguistically, and historically responsive instruction that engaged texts and tasks that built on and developed student engagement in ways that affirmed diverse identities, built confidence, and developed self-efficacy, more students would have more opportunity to develop flexible, powerful literacies in school settings. In other words, if expectations for instruction were aimed at providing more than cognitive skill training, and instead aimed to integrate

8  CONCLUSION: INFLUENCE AND EVIDENCE IN READING-RELATED POLICY 

193

opportunities for students to build on their existing social, cultural, and linguistic competence, more students would have more opportunities to learn. This shift could be understood as acknowledging and extending students’ underlying competence as readers, writers, and learners in classrooms. Put differently, it involves a focus on being the nation of readers that we are, rather than becoming a set and narrow version of readers that score well on national and international measures of achievement. These and other expansions of what counts as reading and good reading instruction would expand the available options for serving students in more nimble and responsive ways. In addition, broadening these conceptions allows us to more critically examine the federal and state policies that have previously been proposed and instituted. For example, an expanded definition of what reading success is, and where students should be served, would direct more precise evaluations of the efficacy of special education programs, summer school programs, and third-grade trigger laws. As DellaVecchia demonstrates in Chap. 1, these laws assume that students struggle with reading because of individual deficits in specific skill areas, rather than classroom- or school-deficits in resources or instruction. However, 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, including enrichment opportunities or tutoring, which have far more empirical support than retention.

Being a Nation of Readers At this moment in the history of education policy, what counts as evidence of reading and of good reading instruction is narrowing. The Science of Reading movement, which is effectively silent on considerations or implications for instruction beyond third grade, has inspired a return to basic skills instruction, core knowledge development, and a diagnostic frame for low reading achievement that is narrowly focused on early skill development without considering other factors for which there is significant evidence (cf. Hanford, 2018). The current motivational frame is a response to recalcitrant achievement gaps and low or no progress in reading achievement in general, and in the achievement of students with reading difficulties in particular. The current prognostic frame involves requiring the

194 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

purchase of an increasingly small set of materials deemed capable of providing adequate coverage of standards and skills, rather than investing in the development of a more expansive repertoire of instructional possibilities. In 1985, the authors of Becoming a Nation of Readers (1985) worried that “a small number of basal reading programs have a strong influence on how American children are taught to read and what American children read” (p. 36). After 35 years, we are on the verge of returning and surpassing the limitations of that troubling scenario. The recent return to controlled (“decodable”) text and emphasis on providing “high-quality instructional materials” (HQIM) represents a defensive narrowing of what reading instruction is and includes. We view it as defensive because it represents a doubling-down and narrowing of policy strategies that have been attempted in the past with limited success: including accountability, standards, and curriculum mandates. Defensiveness is the appropriate response to the crises in literacy, literacy instruction, and literacy achievement that are highlighted in reports as well as media representations of reading and reading instruction. A cynical reading of this historical moment would highlight the increasing role of edutech companies in measuring student achievement and generating the curricular materials used for instruction. As Ward, Vines, and Gabriel described in Chap. 4, the idea that “high-quality instructional materials” (HQIM) are universal, rather than contingent on the particular communities they are designed to serve, is a clear example of the influence of corporate interests over the dynamic needs of an increasingly diverse student population. Corporations benefit from an education system that is continually in crisis because they can provide products that purport to be the solution to the perpetual problems of schools. Conservative policymakers also benefit from an education system that is perpetually in a state of crisis because it makes the argument for privatization more palatable, and the likelihood that private enterprise will be required to solve the problems of public schools, more viable.

A Wider Frame of Reference Returning to the James Baldwin quote that begins the introduction to this volume, we argue that literacy-related education policy is in need of a wider “frame of reference.” If we compare the state of public schools in 1964 to the present, we will find incredible growth in the number of

8  CONCLUSION: INFLUENCE AND EVIDENCE IN READING-RELATED POLICY 

195

students educated; the diversity of learners, teachers, and curriculum; the range of structures for schooling; and the opportunities to pursue continued and higher education. Yet, some things have stayed largely the same. In a 1964 speech aimed at gathering support for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), President Johnson said: In many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualified teachers are underpaid, and many of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.

Some classrooms in the U.S. still struggle with the infrastructural challenges of class size, teacher shortages, and ineffective systems for professional development to deepen the expertise of teachers and leaders. The simple goal of “a place to sit and a teacher to learn from” remains elusive in some places. In others, the structures are in place: classrooms have chairs and teachers in abundance, but bars to learning exist based on students’ identities, like their race, language, and disability status. Johnson foresaw the need for more than just infrastructure, explaining: more classrooms and more teachers are not enough. We must seek an educational system which grows in excellence as it grows in size … It means exploring new techniques of teaching, to find new ways to stimulate the love of learning and the capacity for creation.

Growing in excellence as we grow in size requires expanding our frame of reference: for reading, its measurement, and teaching; for who is accountable for ensuring excellent reading instruction; and for what counts as excellent reading instruction for every child, every day. It requires quelling panic around persistent questions and instead engaging with the full complexity of providing opportunities to learn across contexts and cultures in a large and changing country. That this is difficult should not be cause for alarm or evidence of crisis. Baldwin writes that we owe our aspirations to history as well as our frames of reference and our sense of identity. Based on a more detailed understanding of the history of education policy, we might aspire to use policy differently in the future than we have in the past. We might engage the science of implementation, sciences of teacher learning, and build the

196 

R. GABRIEL AND S. KELLEY

capacity needed to support an expansive vision of learning to be literate in school. And, as Frankel reminds us in Chap. 2, expanding our vision will require listening to students themselves about what they know, need, and can do. Student-focused and student-generated data must be part of evaluation and accountability strategies because a student’s experience in, and orientation to, learning is a key mediator of their success and, by extension, the success of any policy. By way of conclusion to Baldwin’s famous “Talk to Teachers,” he writes: if America is going to become a nation, she must find a way – and [each] child must help her to find a way to use the tremendous potential and tremendous energy which this child represents. If this country does not find a way to use that energy, it will be destroyed by that energy.

For centuries, reading has been a conduit for the exploration of self and world that allows people to confront difficult questions, develop new orientations, and find connection. Like readers, reading-related policies engage difficult questions, require new orientations, and will benefit from more elaborated connections with students, educators, and researchers alike. Evaluations that include student input, an expanding paradigm for both literacy research and policy, and an emphasis on applying evidence from past precedent can redirect the current trajectory of regressive policies toward new terrain in the struggle for equity and achievement.

References Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Barkan, J. (2018). Death by a thousand cuts: The story of privatizing public education in the USA. In G. Steiner-Khamsi, & A. Draxler (Eds.), The state, business and education. Public-private partnerships revisited (pp. 16–38). Edward Elgar. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-­sheet/ wp/2018/05/30/what-­a nd-­w ho-­i s-­f ueling-­t he-­m ovement-­t o-­p rivatize-­ public-­education-­and-­why-­you-­should-­care Burch, P. (2020). Federal policy and the push to privatize education. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(2), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720963224 Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.99.2.311

8  CONCLUSION: INFLUENCE AND EVIDENCE IN READING-RELATED POLICY 

197

Gabriel, R. (2021). The sciences of reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 78(8), 58–64. Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., Unlu, F., Bozzi, L., Caswell, L., Rodger, C., Smith, W. C., Brigham, N., & Rosenblum, S. (2008). Reading first impact study: Final report (NCEE 2009-4038). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ pdf/20094038.pdf Garan, E. M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel Report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 500–506. https:// doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200705 Hanford, E. (2018, September 10). Hard words: Why aren’t kids being taught to read? APM reports. Retrieved from https://www.apmrepor ts.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-­w ords-­w hy-­a merican-­k ids-­ arent-­Being-­taught-­to-­read Kingdon, J.  W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown and Company. Matthews, D. (2018) Billionaires are spending their fortunes reshaping America’s schools. It isn’t working. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/future-­ perfect/2018/10/30/17862050/education-­policy-­charity Opper, I. M. (2019). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student achievement. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/ pubs/research_reports/RR4312.html Reckhow, S., & Snyder, J. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/1 0.3102/0013189X14536607 Strauss, V. (2021, April, 7). Former lobbyist details how privatizers are trying to end public education. Washington Post. Retrieved from https:// www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/04/16/former-­l obbyist-­ details-­how-­privatizers-­are-­trying-­to-­end-­public-­education/ Woulfin, S., & Gabriel, R. (2020). The science of reading: Supports critiques and questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), S1–S360. https://doi. org/10.1002/rrq.339

Afterword Danielle Dennis

Public scholarship is the responsibility of researchers that is typically undervalued by institutions of higher education. This tension leads to fissures between scientific research and policymaking that are exacerbated by the glacial nature of educational publishing. As Dr. Gabriel points out in the conclusion, this leaves researchers on the back foot and forces reactive responses to policy rather than proactive attempts to inform policymakers and their constituents. As a result, scholars are rarely sought out as educational legislation is developed. This cycle contributes to the narrowing of educational concepts in policy, which in turn negatively impacts teachers and students. Reading through the chapters in this volume left me thinking of two words: complexity and nuance. The research presented throughout the book demonstrates how multifaceted topics of educational policy are, though these concepts are often oversimplified in the political process. If we think of literacy as a civil right, then simplifying the complex process of reading development serves as an oppressive tool for marginalized

D. Dennis College of Education and Professional Studies, University of Rhode Island, Providence, RI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9

199

200 

AFTERWORD

youth and limits educators in how they can address the teaching of reading. Yet, it is the knowledge and actions of students and teachers that are evaluated when policies are put into place, regardless of context, resources, or leadership. This is abundantly clear in the book’s opening chapters as we learn about the history of retention, remediation, and reading difficulties. Children connected with one or more of these populations need teachers with a wide angle understanding of reading development. However, it is these very populations that are pinned with definitions of reading so narrow opportunities for success are limited. By the time these policies are evaluated through robust and rigorous research too many children have been fed a diet of instruction that starves them of their identities. Teachers, so often the scapegoats of failed policies, have limited opportunities to develop their pedagogical content knowledge instead of receiving fidelity training for instructional materials sold by publishing companies as the gold standard. Later chapters in this volume shed light on the myriad ways equity is abandoned in favor of policies that encourage the status quo. In response, Gabriel rightly calls for impact evaluations to be built into educational policies and for those evaluations to focus on educational tools, rather than on accountability and outcome measures of teachers and students. The more I think about it, the more I realize that we—the reading research community—cannot discuss a desire for more equitable and inclusive educational practices without engaging in the public scholarship of policy work. We have witnessed too many iterations of misinformed policies that fail to acknowledge the complexity and nuance of our field. This has profound and lasting impacts on children and teachers while policymakers, and companies that profit from their work, are left unscathed. Rather than continuing the research to practice narrative of our field, we should expand the conversation to include a research to practice to policy cycle that encourages us to translate our work for both educational settings and the policy arena.

Index1

B Bilingual education, 139–157, 159 Biliteracy, 9, 144, 147, 152, 156–159 C Compensatory reading instruction, 61, 171 Culturally relevant, 143–145, 148, 150, 157, 192 Cumulative disadvantage, 13, 121–134, 173 Curriculum, 5, 21, 45, 51, 65, 77, 92, 94, 98, 102, 107–109, 126, 131, 134, 142, 148, 160, 177, 182, 190, 191, 194, 195 D Developmentally appropriate practice, 104, 109

Developmental reading, 61, 105, 192 Dyslexia, 5, 76, 124, 188 E Early literacy, ix, 2, 8, 90, 91, 97, 100, 102, 104, 107–113, 175, 190 Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 3, 4, 8, 16, 64, 66, 69, 74, 75, 90–95, 97, 101, 103, 105, 107, 110, 123–128, 133, 141, 142, 148, 152, 171, 175, 177, 181, 182, 195 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 8, 75, 76, 78, 91, 103, 105–110, 113, 140, 155–159, 181, 188, 192 H High-stakes testing, 45, 72

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 R. Gabriel (ed.), How Education Policy Shapes Literacy Instruction, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08510-9

201

202 

INDEX

I Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 69, 74 Instruction, vi–ix, 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 13, 23, 36, 43, 51, 61–82, 89–113, 123–131, 133, 134, 139–160, 169–181, 188, 190–195, 200 L Learning disability, 66, 67, 69, 74–77, 123, 127–129 Literacy coach, 169, 175, 176 M Multilingual, 9, 78, 139–160 N National Assessment of Education Progress, 73 A Nation At Risk, 41, 70, 95–96, 148 No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 16, 18, 20n5, 34, 41, 44, 74, 75, 91, 101–102, 105, 107, 110, 152, 154, 155, 158, 175–178 P Phonics, 67, 74, 90, 93, 96–101, 107–109, 111, 126, 154, 171, 174, 175, 181 Privatization, 20, 21, 194 R Race to the Top (RTTT), 102–105, 177, 180 Reading assessment, viii Reading difficulties, vi, ix, 2, 5–8, 48, 62, 64–67, 69, 70, 76, 81,

97–98, 107, 121–134, 170, 172, 177, 181, 182, 190, 192, 193 Reading intervention, 61, 76–78, 80–82, 124, 126–129, 131, 133, 134 Reading policy, 5, 65, 66, 76, 79, 82, 132–133, 187–189, 192 Reading research, 36, 70, 73–78, 93, 173, 181, 200 Reading specialist, v, 72, 169, 176 Remedial reading, 8, 61–82 Retention, vii–ix, 7–8, 12–16, 18, 18n4, 19, 22–40, 23n8, 32n13, 39n17, 42–51, 42n20, 72, 129, 130, 133, 134, 170, 187, 193, 200 Retention in grade, 2, 7, 11–53 S Social promotion, 13, 16, 41, 42, 44 Special education, 15, 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 95, 101, 126, 128, 129, 172, 193 Standardized testing, 16, 25, 31–34, 45, 51, 91, 178 Standards movement, 174 Student achievement, 47, 52, 94, 109, 169, 171–173, 175, 177–181, 192, 194 T Teacher effects, 175, 178–180, 192 Teacher evaluation, 169–180 Teacher knowledge, 170, 174, 180, 181 Teacher quality, viii, ix, 2, 169–183 Third-grade reading laws, 12–16, 18–23, 23n8, 25, 29, 31, 32, 37–39, 41, 44–47, 51, 53 Trigger laws, vii, 7, 11–53, 193