Literacy Now

IRA has released a letter of support for the position taken by the Learning First Alliance on the need for an extended transition to full implementation of the Common Core State Standards before CCSS-based assessments begin. The text of the letter is set out below. A PDF version is also available.

IRA SUPPORTS
COMMON CORE STATEMENT  
ISSUED BY LEARNING FIRST ALLIANCE

June 19, 2013--The International Reading Association (IRA) supports the Learning First Alliance’s recent statement about the Common Core State Standards. The Learning First Alliance is a partnership of national educational organizations. Its members include the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The Learning First Alliance document in its entirety can be accessed at /learningfirst. Key points include the following:

• The Common Core State Standards have the potential to transform teaching and learning and provide all children with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the global community.
• Teachers, administrators, parents and communities need to work together to align the standards with curriculum, instruction and assessment. This work will take time.
• Rushing to make high-stakes decisions such as student advancement or graduation, teacher evaluation, school performance designation, or state funding awards based on assessments of the Common Core standards before the standards have been fully and properlyimplemented is unwise. Delaying high-stakes consequences will ensure that educators have adequate time to adjust their instruction, that students will have time to focus their attention on new learning goals, and that parents and communities can provide the necessary supports for their children.
• States and districts should continue to hold educators and schools to a high standard as determined by the components of their accountability systems, which are not solely based on standardized tests, but include other evidence of student learning, peer evaluations, school climate data and more.
• There is a growing consensus that we are moving too quickly to implement new standards, new assessments, and new high-stakes decisions related to those assessments. It is fair to say that time is of the essence in school reform, and yet, moving too quickly runs the risk of undermining the Common Core – and losing the opportunity to improve educational outcomes for all students. Educators must take the necessary time to ensure success in this endeavor.

The International Reading Association is the leading professional organization for literacy development in the world. IRA members have strong expertise in all areas of the English Language Arts Standards (ELA Standards), and Association leaders strongly believe that this expertise should be leveraged to inform and support educators in understanding and implementing the Common Core State Standards. In 2012, IRA issued a document entitled “Literacy Implementation Guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards” to support state and local leaders, teachers, university faculty, publishers, and planners and facilitators of teacher professional learning opportunities as they implement the Common Core. The text focuses on specific language in the Standards, including key terms, major shifts in instructional focus, and critical points on which the Standards are simply silent. In each instance, the Committee provides bulleted recommendations that address the identified challenge by offering practical strategies for moving forward.

This document, which was endorsed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), addresses specific literacy issues that have proven to be challenging in the implementation of the English Language Arts Standards.  These include: The use of challenging text, foundational skills, reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing, disciplinary literacy, and diverse learners. The Literacy Guidance document is based upon a consensus of thinking from literacy leaders in the field and widely known and adjudicated research. As noted in the document:

The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts represent qualitatively different outcomes and their accomplishment will require significant shifts in educational practice involving teachers across the curriculum. Changes this significant are not likely to occur successfully without equally significant investments in the knowledge and skills of educators along with necessary material supports. There are many things that teachers must do to try to help students reach the expectations detailed in the CCSS—this guidance is provided to help with such implementation. States and schools will need to support such efforts with appropriate and timely professional development for teachers. (IRA, 2012, p.4)

(To obtain a copy of IRA’s “Literacy Implementation Guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards,” please see: /ccssguidelines.)

Maureen McLaughlin, IRA President
Brenda Overturf, IRA CCSS Committee Co-Chair
Timothy Shanahan, IRA CCSS Committee Co-Chair

by Maureen McLaughlin

The following are not questions to be answered, but rather ideas to prompt thinking as readers create their literacy histories. Please note the list is not definitive, and that the prompts primarily address reading and writing. If your students are writing their Histories, they may reflect on the entire list or you may provide selected prompts. Please also note that many students enjoy using technology to create electronic memory books to represent their Literacy Histories. 

1. What are your earliest memories of reading and writing?

2. Before you were able to read, did you pretend to read books? Can you remember the first time you read a book? What was it?

3. Can you recall your early writing attempts (scribbling, labeling drawings, etc.)? How would you describe those experiences?

4. Do you read and/or write with your siblings or friends? Please detail a few examples.

5. Is a newspaper delivered to your home? Do you read it? Do you regularly read one through your computer/i-Pad/phone? If you have access to a newspaper, which sections do you read? Why do you choose to read those?

6. Do you subscribe to magazines (hard copy or electronic)? Do your parents/siblings have magazine subscriptions (hard copy or electronic)?

7. Do you belong to a library and/or book club? Do you maintain a personal library (hard copy or electronic)? Do you read for pleasure (hard copy or electronic)? Please provide examples.

8. Do you receive or send mail (hard copy or electronic) e.g., messages, birthday cards, thank-you notes?

9. Can you detail your first memories of reading and/or writing instruction? Materials used? Methods of teaching? Content?

10. What memories do you have of reading for pleasure in elementary school? Middle school? High school? College?

11. What are your memories of reading in disciplinary subjects, such as science, social studies, language, and mathematics in elementary school? Middle? High school? College?

12. Can you remember writing for pleasure in elementary school? Middle school? High school? College? Please provide an example.

13. What are your memories of writing in disciplinary subjects?

14. Who were your best teachers? What made them so great?

15. Can you recall the first book you chose to read? Why did you read it?

16. Can you recall your first writing assignment? Can you recall the first time you wrote creatively? Please provide examples.

17. Do you remember the purposes for your reading and writing in elementary, middle, and high school? Do you recall any particular type of instruction you received? Can you describe any instructional materials that were used? Please include the role of technology.

18. Can you recall the first book you loved (couldn’t put down)? Please provide an example.

19. Do you feel that you’ve ever read a book that has made a difference in your life? Please recount the details

20. Have you shared books with friends? Please provide example titles and explain why you read them.

21. Did you read a certain type of book (i.e., mysteries, biographies) at a particular age? Why do you think you made such choices? Do you still read those genres now?

22. How do you think technology has affected your reading and writing?

23. When did you first visit a bookstore? What was it like?

24. What is your all-time favorite book? Why is it your favorite?

25. Have you ever seen a book you’ve read turned into a film? Explain which you preferred and why.

26. How do you think your reading and writing abilities have contributed to your life?

27. Are you a reader now? What are you currently reading? Why are you reading it?

28. Are you a writer now? What are you currently writing? Why are you writing it?

Maureen McLaughlin is the president of the International Reading Association and the chair of the reading department and a professor at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania, mmclaughlin@esu.edu. She is the author of Guided Comprehension in Grades 3–8 (with Mary Beth Allen), Guided Comprehension in the Primary Grades (2nd ed.), and Guided Comprehension for English Learners, as well as a series of professional development books on the Common Core with Brenda J. Overturf.

This piece was published online as an addendum to her "President's Message" column in the June/July 2013 issue of Reading Today. IRA members can read the interactive digital version of the magazine here. Nonmembers: join today!

The International Reading Association congratulates the following 2013 award winners, who were honored at our 58th Annual Convention in San Antonio.

IRA Arbuthnot Award

Nancy Roser, University of Texas at Austin

IRA Award for Technology and Reading

Grand Winner: Stephanie Thompson, Ontario, Canada

East Regional Winner: Lauren Bakian, New York

Southeast Regional Winner: Monica Prather, Florida

West Regional Winner: Peter Count, Australia

IRA Jerry Johns Outstanding Teacher Educator in Reading Award

Cheryl Dozier, University at Albany – State University of New York

IRA/Weekly Reader Eleanor M. Johnson

Doris Coffey, Murfreesboro, Tennessee

IRA William S. Gray Citation of Merit

Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois at Chicago

IRA Regie Routman Teacher Recognition Grant

Maurna Rome, Ogilvie, MN

IRA Maryann Manning Outstanding Volunteer Service Award

Paul Haupt, Ysleta Independent School District

Barbara Klebanow, Rockland Reading Council

IRA Paul A. Witty Short Story Award

Katy Duffield, “Winds of Hope,” published in Cricket Magazine

IRA Lee Bennett Hopkins Promising Poet Award

Guadalupe Garcia McCall, Under the Mesquite, Lee and Low Books

IRA Children’s and Young Adults’ Book Award – Primary Fiction

Deborah Jo Larson, One Frozen Lake, Minnesota Historical Society

IRA Children’s and Young Adults’ Book Award – Primary Nonfiction

Linda McReynolds and Ryan O’Rourke, Eight Days Gone, Charlesbridge

IRA Children’s and Young Adults’ Book Award – Intermediate Fiction

Susan Verrico, Privateer’s Apprentice, Peachtree

IRA Children’s and Young Adults’ Book Award – Intermediate Nonfiction

James Doyle, A Young Scientist’s Guide to Defying Disasters with Skill and Daring, Gibbs Smith

IRA Children’s and Young Adults’ Book Award – Young Adult Fiction

Amy McNamara, Lovely, Dark and Deep, Simon and Schuster

IRA Children’s and Young Adults’ Book Award – Young Adult Nonfiction

Cynthia Levinson, We’ve Got a Job: The 1963 Birmingham Children’s March, Peachtree

Learn more about these and other award and grant opportunities on the IRA awards webpage.

The following talented researchers, some quite accomplished and some at the beginnings of their careers, were recognized at a ceremony in San Antonio on Saturday, April 20, 2013, at the International Reading Association's 58th Annual Convention.

2013 IRA Esther Zolt Academic Research Grants

Josephine Marsh, Lettice Pelotte, and David Krauter, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona
“Inter-grad Digital Discussions: An E-Pal Project Using In2Books”

Elizabeth M. Hughes, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
“Motivating Students to Achieve: The Impact of a Pen Pal Program on Students’ Achievement and Motivation” 

This award is sponsored by Nina Zolt and Miles Gilburne to honor the memory of Esther Zolt.

2013 IRA Dina Feitelson Research Award

Michael J. Kieffer, New York University, New York, New York
“Converging Trajectories: Reading Growth in Language Minority Learners and Their Classmates, Kindergarten to Grade 8,” published in American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1187–1225, October 2011
This award is sponsored by Jehuda Feitelson to honor the memory of Dina Feitelson.

2013 IRA Jeanne S. Chall Research Fellowship

Susan Gray, The City University of New York, New York, New York
“Adult Literacy and Citizenship: Empowering Struggling Readers with Morphological Instruction and Civics”

2013 IRA Steven A. Stahl Research Grant

Angela Williams, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
“Using Students’ Perceptions and the MUSIC Model of Academic Motivation to Improve Reading Motivation and Achievement in an Elementary Classroom”
This grant is sponsored by Katherine A. Stahl to honor the memory and work of Steven A. Stahl.

2013 IRA Elva Knight Research Grants

Tanya Christ, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan
X. Christine Wang, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York
“How Emergent Readers Explore and Develop Skills and Strategies for Reading Digital Texts”

Amy Stornaiuolo, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
“Exploring Social Reading: Adolescents’ Literacy Practices in an Interactive Reading Community”

2013 IRA Helen M. Robinson Research Grant 

Eric Claravall, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California
“Examining the Potential of the Teacher as Researcher Model in Developing Morphological Awareness Among Struggling Readers”

2013 IRA Teacher as Researcher Grants

Rachael Cooper, Thurgood Marshall Academy Lower School, New York, New York

Jodene Morrell, Columbia University, New York, New York
“Using Multicultural Literature to Increase and Improve Diverse Urban Third Graders’ Socioemotional Wellness, Cultural Awareness, and Writing”

Peta Gresham, The King’s School, North Parramatta, Australia
“Pedagogy, Technology, and Creativity: Fostering Student Achievement in Senior English”

Michelle Gunderson, Nettelhorst Elementary School, Chicago, Illinois
“Teachers’ Approaches to Intervention Planning for Struggling Readers Using an RtI Framework”

Rawia Hayik, Eilaboun Elementary School, Eilaboun, Israel
“Through Their Eyes: Israeli-Arab Students Speak Up Through Participatory Documentary Photography Projects”

Danielle Kachorsky, Precision Academy, Phoenix, Arizona
“Young Adult Literature as a Bridge to the Canon”

2013 IRA Albert J. Harris Award

Lynn M. Gelzheiser, University of Albany, Albany, New York
Donna Scanlon, University of Albany, Albany, New York
Frank Vellutino, University of Albany, Albany, New York
Laura Hallgren-Flynn, University of Albany, Albany, New York
Christopher Schatschneider, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
“Effects of the Interactive Strategies Approach— Extended: A Response and Comprehensive Intervention for Intermediate-Grade Struggling Readers,” published in The Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 280–306, December 2011

2013 IRA Outstanding Dissertation of the Year

Byeong-Young Cho, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa; dissertation from the University of Maryland; chaired by Peter P. Afflerbach; dissertation title:
“Adolescents’ Constructively Responsive Reading Use in a Critical Internet Reading Task”
The IRA Outstanding Dissertation Award is sponsored by SchoolRise, LLC.

2013 IRA Outstanding Dissertation of the Year Finalists

Vicki S. Collet, dissertation from the University at Buffalo, State University of New York; chaired by Mary McVee; dissertation title:
“The Gradual Increase of Responsibility: Scaffolds for Change”

Rebecca S. Donaldson, dissertation from the Utah State University; chaired by D. Ray Reutzel; dissertation title:
“What Classroom Observations Reveal About Primary Grade Reading Comprehension Instruction Within High Poverty Schools Participating in the Federal Reading First Initiative”

Darcy Anne Fiano, dissertation from the University of Connecticut; chaired by Mary Anne Doyle; dissertation title:
“Primary Discourse and Expressive Oral Language in a Kindergarten Student”

Lindsay P. Grow, dissertation from the University of Kentucky; chaired by Janice F. Almasi; dissertation title:
“The Identity Development of Preservice Teachers of Literacy in Field Experiences Considering Their Prior Knowledge”

Andrew P. Huddleston, dissertation from the University of Georgia; chaired by Donna Alvermann; dissertation title:
“Making the Difficult Choice: Understanding Georgia’s Test- Based Grade Retention Policy in Reading”

Charlene Sue Huntley-Martin, dissertation from the University of Oklahoma; chaired by Priscilla Griffith; dissertation title:
“A Study of Factors that Contribute to Pre-Service Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Literacy Instruction”

Elizabeth L. Jaeger, dissertation from University of California, Berkeley; chaired by P. David Pearson; dissertation title:
“Understanding and Supporting Vulnerable Readers: An Ecological Systems Perspective”

Michael L. Manderin, dissertation from the University of Illinois at Chicago; chaired by Cynthia Shanahan; dissertation title:
“Reading Across Multiple Multimodal Texts in History”

Darcie D. Smith, dissertation from the University of Nevada, Reno; chaired by Shane Templeton; dissertation title:
“How Do 4th, 5th, and 6th Grade Students’ Categories of Cognitive Reflections in Interviews on Derivational Morphology Compare to Their Upper Level Spelling Inventory Orthographic Knowledge?”

Learn more about these awards and grants at /awards.

P. David Pearson,
University of California,
Berkeley, and Virginia
Goatley, University of
Albany, authored the
LRP response

In its July 2, 2013 blog post, the IRA Literacy Research Panel responds to the June 17, 2013 release of the controversial Teacher Prep Review by the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). Noting the methodological and conceptual flaws in the NCTQ report, as well as issues raised by NCTQ’s own Audit Committee, the IRA Literacy Research Panel asserts that the report “should never have seen the light of day.” However, the panel emphasized that NCTQ’s flawed methodology was not the focus of its own response.

Instead, the Literacy Research Panel stated that its purpose in commenting is “to look forward to what we can do as a profession, and as a nation, to improve teacher education.” Whether NCTQ could ever be joined in a common agenda, averred the panel, would necessarily depend on NCTQ’s willingness to reconsider its methodology and to expand the set of criteria and standards that it applies to teacher education program evaluation.

The panel’s response goes on to enumerate three distinct issues occasioned by the disconnect between the standards and methods of NCTQ and what literacy professionals know is effective for teacher education.

Standards of Accountability for Teacher Educators

With respect to the appropriate standards of accountability for teacher educators, the panel notes that NCTQ uses 17 standards to assess the quality of teacher education programs. Yet despite this apparent amplitude, there are conspicuous omissions of critical factors from the NCTQ perspective. The panel catalogues this deficit in detail, observing the NCTQ benchmark omits anything to do with speaking, listening, or writing, the role of text in discipline-based learning, diversity, instructional groups, motivation and engagement, and metacognition.

According to the panel, NCTQ adds to the confusion by not making clear how certain of its own standards apply to which programs, primary or secondary.  Moreover, the panel zeroes in on NCTQ’s use of the so-called “five pillars” in the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP) as a standard for ranking teacher prep schools. While acknowledging that these topics are critical, the Literacy Research Panel notes that the five pillars are, in themselves, “by no means sufficient.” Indeed, the panel cites language from the NRP itself for the proposition that the five pillars are not exhaustive of what prospective teachers need to learn.

Stakeholders in Improving Teacher Education

The Literacy Research panel also takes issue with the tacit assumption of the Teacher Prep Review that, until publication of this report, no one else connected with teacher education research and development “was concerned enough about the quality of teacher education to worry about its improvement.” Nor, as the panel observes, is there “any attempt to review the knowledge base in teacher education.” The panel summarizes well known resources and databases that the NCTQ vetting team might have consulted, but did not do so.

This deficit is especially puzzling with respect to IRA itself. As the panel makes clear, “IRA has a long history of providing leadership in teacher education, with multiple efforts in the last decade.” Examples cited by the panel include: IRA Standards for Reading Professionals – Revised 2010; IRA Involvement with Teacher Education Accreditation, Position Papers, and Research Reports; Prepared to Make a Difference (2003); and IRA Certification of Distinction for the Reading Preparation of Elementary and Secondary Teachers. These resources cover many of the substantive program standards espoused in the NCTQ report.

Common Goals for Improvement of Teacher Education

The Literacy Research Panel also takes strong exception to NCTQ’s privileging of training over preparation in the education of prospective teachers, valuing generalized technical skill over situated and highly contextualized knowledge.  As the panel states, “implicit in this choice is the assumption that teaching is more a trade than a profession.” With this proposition the panel could not disagree more, explaining the difference as follows: “For the trainer, the knowledge is a recipe or routine to be enacted faithfully; for the educator, it is significant information that guides practice in concert with multiple related pieces of research-based knowledge.”

In concluding its response, the panel challenges NCTQ’s bona fides as a stakeholder in the cause of improving education, urging NCTQ to reject “the current strategy of trying to shame programs into compliance by subjecting their practices to an unprofessional evaluation and holding superficial records up to public ridicule.” The best path forward, the panel opines, would be for NCTQ “to join those of us who have labored in the field for decades to promote improvement through research, researched-based practice, and exemplary programs.”

P. David Pearson, University of California, Berkeley, and Virginia Goatley, University of Albany, authored the response, with contributions from Karen Wixson, University of North Carolina, Greensboro; Peter Afflerbach, University of Maryland; Gloria Ladson-Billings, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Catherine Snow, Harvard Graduate School of Education; and William Teale, University of Illinois, Chicago.