Literacy Daily

Literacy Leadership
Struggling Readers
Just the Facts! Close Reading and Comprehension of Informational Text
Close Reading and Writing From Sources
Struggling Readers
Just the Facts! Close Reading and Comprehension of Informational Text
Close Reading and Writing From Sources
    • Content Types
    • Job Functions
    • News & Events
    • Literacy Leadership
    • Topics

    Standards 2017: Curriculum and Instruction

    By April Hall
     | Feb 21, 2017

    A draft of ILA’s eagerly awaited Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 (Standards 2017) will be available for public comment from April 17 to May 8. In the weeks leading up to the public comment period, we’ll take a look at the significant changes proposed in Standards 2017, which will be submitted for Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) approval in fall 2017 and published in early 2018. Once approved by CAEP, ILA’s new set of seven standards will become the ruler by which preparation programs for literacy professionals, specifically reading/literacy specialists, are measured.

    Beverly DeVries PhotoStandard 2 addresses curriculum and instruction in the classroom. Lead writer Beverly DeVries, professor emerita of reading at Southern Nazarene University in Oklahoma, said it is closely related to others, particularly Standard 3, Assessment and Evaluation, and Standard 4, Diversity and Equity.

    In other words, Standard 2 identifies the skills, knowledge, and dispositions literacy professionals need to align their curriculum and instruction with their individual students or with the classroom community.

    The Standard also addresses collaboration in the creation of curriculum, whether with the research from professional associations like ILA and institutions of higher education, with the Department of Education, or with local school districts.

    “There has to be a connection between schools and the local universities,” DeVries said. “We believe they should collaborate on curriculum and instruction with a lot of integration.”

    She said that when writing the latest revision, her team used feedback they received from reviewers, for example, incorporating more emphasis on inclusion and differentiation. She also said the diversity of her team helped inform their work.

    The team for Standard 2 included the following:

    • Dana Robertson, assistant professor, elementary and early childhood education, University of Wyoming
      • Susan Piazza, associate professor, Western Michigan University
        • Cindy Parker, educator/education management, Lexington, KY

        Remember to review the Standards 2017 when it is posted for open public comment on April 17 and be sure to have your voice heard.

        April Hall is editor of Literacy Daily. A journalist for more than 20 years, she has specialized in education, writing and editing for newspapers, websites, and magazines.


        Read More
        • Blog Posts
        • Corporate Sponsor
        • Job Functions
        • Administrator
        • Classroom Teacher
        • Teacher Preparation
        • Professional Development
        • School Policies
        • School Leadership
        • Administration
        • Topics
        • Literacy Leadership
        • News & Events
        • Volunteer
        • Tutor
        • Teacher Educator
        • Special Education Teacher
        • Retiree
        • Reading Specialist
        • Policymaker
        • Partner Organization
        • Other/Literacy Champion
        • Literacy Education Student
        • Literacy Coach
        • Librarian
        • Content Types

        Standards 2017: Foundational Knowledge

        By April Hall
         | Feb 14, 2017

         

        helen perkins headshot
        J. Helen Perkins

        A draft of ILA’s eagerly awaited Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 (Standards 2017) will be available for public comment from April 17 to May 8. In the weeks leading up to the public comment period, we’ll take a look at the significant changes proposed in Standards 2017, which will be submitted for Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) approval in fall 2017 and published in early 2018. Once approved by CAEP, ILA’s new set of seven standards will become the ruler by which preparation programs for literacy professionals, specifically reading/literacy specialists, are measured.

        Standard 1 in ILA’s Standards 2017 addresses “foundational knowledge,” or the role of theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading, writing, and communication in the preparation of literacy professionals. J. Helen Perkins, associate professor at the University of Memphis and lead writer on Standard 1, said her team didn’t approach the standard as an expansion from Standards 2010 but rather as a rewrite to include the latest research in the field. The Standard 1 writing team also included the following:

        • Anne McGill-Franzen, professor and director of the Reading Center, University of Tennessee
        • Jeanne Schumm, professor emerita, University of Miami
        • Vicky Zygouris-Coe, professor of Education, University of Central Florida

        “The Standard is much more rigorous, and there are high expectations that require a deeper understanding of literacy access and acquisition,” Perkins said.

        She noted that the writing team gave a lot of consideration to reciprocity, or the idea that when students improve in reading, other communications will improve in turn. Perkins emphasized that Standard 1 now requires literacy professionals to not only have the knowledge base but also be able to demonstrate that knowledge.

        Perkins shared that Standard 1 now has a focus on multimodal literacy, which wasn’t even addressed in Standards 2010. She noted, “Students are reading and writing in completely different ways now.”

        She said of the Standards 2017 drafting process that she enjoyed the collaborative work with the other writing teams and learned a lot within her own team. In two years of conference calls and virtual work sessions, the Standard 1 team compiled an extensive list of research sources. Significant effort went into examining that list and determining what was really relevant to foundational knowledge. “Whatever we were putting into Standard 1 was very clearly research-based,” Perkins said. “I think the product will be well worth the labor we put into this.”

        Peruse the entire Standards 2017 draft when it is posted for open public comment on April 17 and be sure to have your voice heard.

        April Hall is editor of Literacy Daily. A journalist for more than 20 years, she has specialized in education, writing and editing for newspapers, websites, and magazines.

         

        Read More
        • Blog Posts
        • Job Functions
        • Corporate Sponsor
        • Classroom Teacher
        • Administrator
        • Literacy Advocacy
        • Education Legislation
        • Policy & Advocacy
        • School Leadership
        • Administration
        • Topics
        • Literacy Leadership
        • News & Events
        • Volunteer
        • Tutor
        • Teacher Educator
        • Special Education Teacher
        • Retiree
        • Reading Specialist
        • Policymaker
        • Partner Organization
        • Other/Literacy Champion
        • Literacy Education Student
        • Literacy Coach
        • Librarian
        • Content Types

        Confirmation of DeVos Portends Education Policy Upheaval

        By Dan mangan
         | Feb 09, 2017

        DeVos_300One tiebreaking vote by the vice president.

        On that slender a margin, Betsy DeVos—the billionaire philanthropist, GOP mega-donor, and school choice advocate who has no direct experience in public schools—was confirmed as Secretary of Education following a 50-50 split vote in the U.S. Senate.

        High drama preceded the floor vote when two republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, broke ranks and declared they would not vote to confirm DeVos, citing high constituent opposition.

        Their announcement touched off a massive last-ditch effort to produce one more scale-tipping defection, but to no avail despite an historic overload of the congressional phone system. Not even an all-night rally organized by congressional democrats on the eve of the vote was able to break the stalemate.

        Relevant experience

        DeVos’s lack of public school experience cut both ways during the battle over her confirmation. Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, who introduced her at the start of the Senate HELP Committee hearing, extolled it as an asset because “the nation needed a disruptor to fix its ailing schools.”

        Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) expanded upon this theme as the floor vote neared, noting that DeVos is an outsider, not just “another education bureaucrat who knows all the acronyms.” To him, what opponents of DeVos really want is “to keep power over public education right here inside the beltway.”

        Nevertheless, the limitations of such a credential became apparent during her hearing. DeVos stumbled when Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) asked if all schools receiving taxpayer funding should be required to meet the requirements of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), first replying that the matter was better left to the states, and then acknowledging that she may have confused the law.

        When asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) for her view on using tests to measure whether students are making progress, as opposed to focusing on whether students meet proficiency standards, DeVos suggested that advancements should be the measure, leading Franken to reply that growth is not proficiency and to express surprise that she didn’t seem to know the issue.

        Conflict of interest

        DeVos underwent an extensive review by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) for conflict of interest issues, an effort that delayed the final vote until the OGE report was available to each member of the senate committee. In the end she agreed to divest from 102 companies and investment funds.

        Committee democrats asked that the floor vote on DeVos be delayed to allow for additional inquiries on potential conflicts based on the OGE report, a request denied by the chair, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who noted that DeVos had already provided answers to 837 written questions from the senators.

        Ironically, those answers gave rise to a side controversy as some appeared to have been lifted from older documents prepared by staff in the Justice and Education departments.

        School choice and public education

        Central to DeVos’s perspective on improving education is the conviction that school choice, including charter, magnet, and private options, must be available to parents of children whose learning needs are not met by the local public school.

        “If confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for great public schools,” she explained in her opening statement to the committee, but added that if a school is troubled, unsafe, or not a good fit for a child, parents should have the right to “a high quality alternative.”

        Sen. Murray (D-WA) challenged DeVos on this point, asking if she would commit not “to privatize public schools or cut a single penny for public education.” The nominee countered that she would work to address the needs of all parents and students while empowering parents to make choices on behalf of their children. It was a pivotal exchange that marked a clear divide.

        Charter schools proved to be another flare-up issue. DeVos has successfully advocated for charter school options in her home state of Michigan. However, the performance of Michigan charter schools has been a matter of continuing controversy. Critics have zeroed in on the accountability of these institutions, which they claim is minimal at best.

        DeVos rejects any such characterization, calling it “false news.” She maintains that these schools remain accountable to their oversight bodies, and that 122 of these schools have been closed in Michigan since the state first authorized them.

        Civil rights groups, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association seized on DeVos’s school choice views to mount a major publicity effort to block her confirmation due to concerns that choice continues inequity between minority and white students. Meanwhile, 18 republican state governors circulated a letter supporting her for the same reason.

        The challenges ahead

        Since DeVos was first nominated, an intense debate has been ignited on education policy. A vision predicated on the strength of existing models is now confronted by one that draws its power from taking a different tack.

        The assumption that vital progress has been made and is best preserved by current approaches now faces the charge that those approaches have outlived their time and become obstacles to achieving the student learning breakthroughs most sought after.

        As if these deepening rifts were not daunting enough, the discourse needed to bridge them is vexed by presumptions of exclusive legitimacy and assertions of settled fact that all but preclude the finding of common ground. References to what is “mainstream” and what is “troubling” have become a reflexive frame. All is counterpoint, and the result is paralysis.

        Much of the current impasse centers on the respective roles of the federal and state governments. For many, Washington is the only real guardian and guarantor of equal educational opportunity. For others, Washington has become an overbearing national school board whose funding-tied regulatory reach too often puts undue burdens on local officials and classroom teachers.

        At this turning point, critical questions seek urgent resolution. What should be considered indispensable in public education, and what can fairly be put in play? Which existing regulatory mandates ought to be preserved, and where should new options be tried instead?  What is the appropriate educational use of taxpayer dollars? Right now a workable consensus appears almost out of reach.

        Amidst the ferment, literacy professionals continue to grapple day in and day out with instructional realities that lie beyond political paradigms and school system structures. To succeed in this time of upheaval, teachers and school administrators need to hold fast to research-informed approaches to literacy education. With that fealty, forward progress can always be made.

        dan-mangan

        Dan Mangan is the Director of Public Affairs at the International Literacy Association.

         
        Read More
        • Blog Posts
        • Job Functions
        • Administrator
        • Classroom Teacher
        • Corporate Sponsor
        • Teacher Preparation
        • Research
        • Professional Development
        • Teacher Evaluation
        • Administration
        • Topics
        • Literacy Leadership
        • News & Events
        • Volunteer
        • Tutor
        • Teacher Educator
        • Special Education Teacher
        • Retiree
        • Reading Specialist
        • Policymaker
        • Partner Organization
        • Other/Literacy Champion
        • Literacy Education Student
        • Literacy Coach
        • Librarian
        • Content Types

        A New Set of Standards for Professional Preparation

        By April Hall
         | Feb 07, 2017

        The International Literacy Association (ILA) has a track record of setting standards for the literacy field. Every five years, a committee of teacher educators is convened to revise professional preparation standards to stay current with the changing skills and support needed in the classroom. A new revision is underway, and Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 (Standards 2017) will be published January 2018.

        Rita  Beanphoto
        Rita Bean

        Standards 2017 establishes criteria for literacy professional preparation programs throughout the United States and will also be a resource for states, policymakers and those hiring literacy professionals. The Standards describe what candidates for the literacy profession should know and be able to do in professional settings. They are the result of a deliberative process that draws from professional expertise and research in the literacy field.

        Several key shifts have informed the revision process. First, the title is changed from Standards for Reading Professionals to Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals, reflecting the shift to incorporate all facets of literacy in ILA’s mission. Second, Standards 2017 delineates three roles of specialized literacy professionals: reading/literacy specialist, literacy coach, and literacy supervisor/coordinator. These changes were informed by research conducted in a U.S. study and reported in an ILA brief, The Multiple Roles of School-Based Specialized Literacy Professionals. Third, the committee is revising guidance for the roles of classroom teachers, principals, teacher educators, and literacy partners. Last, Standards 2017 includes a new standard for practicum experiences for the role of the reading/literacy specialist.

        diane kern headshot
        Diane Kern

        The proposed revisions to the Standards for the three roles of the specialized literacy professionals were first presented at the ILA 2016 Conference & Exhibits and posted on ILA’s website. April 17–May 8, the current draft will be available for public comment on the ILA website. Reviewers may offer feedback on standards for the specialized literacy professional roles and for three classroom teacher roles: preschool/primary, elementary/intermediate, and middle/high school.

        “The results of the working committee include a major shift for reading/literacy specialists,” said Rita Bean, committee co-chair and professor emeritus at University of Pittsburgh. “We believe the revised Standards will provide a more precise and comprehensive description of the roles of each of the specialized literacy professionals. As such, the Standards will be helpful not only to those preparing literacy professionals but also to personnel responsible for hiring them.” 

        “We’re preparing not only literacy specialists, but also expert literacy teachers who can take on a role of leadership,” said Diane Kern, committee co-chair and associate professor at the University of Rhode Island. 

        A revised Standards 2017 draft, incorporating feedback from the public comment period, will be presented at the ILA 2017 Conference & Exhibits in Orlando, FL, in July. Standards 2017 will then go to the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). Once approved, ILA’s new standards will support CAEP’s evaluation of educator preparation programs.

        April Hall is editor of Literacy Daily. A journalist for 20 years, she has specialized in education, writing and editing for newspapers, websites, and magazines.

         

        Read More
        • Classroom Teacher
        • Administrator
        • Blog Posts
        • Librarian
        • Corporate Sponsor
        • Opportunity Gap
        • Education Legislation
        • Policy & Advocacy
        • School Leadership
        • Administration
        • Topics
        • Literacy Leadership
        • News & Events
        • Volunteer
        • Tutor
        • Teacher Educator
        • Special Education Teacher
        • Retiree
        • Reading Specialist
        • Policymaker
        • Partner Organization
        • Other/Literacy Champion
        • Literacy Education Student
        • Literacy Coach
        • Job Functions
        • Content Types

        ILA Intervenes in Federal Lawsuit Over Failed Literacy Instruction

        By Dan Mangan
         | Jan 18, 2017

        The International Literacy Association (ILA) cosponsored the amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan last week as part of a pending class action litigation that was initiated last fall on behalf of students in the City of Detroit’s public schools.

        Latin for "friend of the court," an amicus brief is a supplemental pleading by persons who are not parties to the underlying case. Its purpose is to place additional pertinent facts and precedents on the record for the court to consult as it renders its decision. Moreover, the court can accept or not accept the brief, in its discretion.

        Counsel representing the plaintiffs, five students from the lowest performing public schools in Detroit, drew national attention to the case by asserting that access to effective literacy instruction is a federal constitutional right their clients had been deprived of by the state’s neglectful administration, inadequate support, and poor oversight.

        william teale 2017
        William Teale
        ILA President of the Board

        For ILA President of the Board William Teale, supporting the class action plaintiffs was an obvious choice. “ILA knows the critical importance of literacy, and we work around the globe to promote it,” Teale said. “Our mission compels us to support the children and families of Detroit in seeking reading and writing education that enables full participation in a democratic society.”

        Marcie Craig Post, ILA’s executive director, agreed. “This important lawsuit casts light on the critical issue of educational access as a central component to becoming literate,” she explained. “We simply have to address these inequities, or we run the risk of continuing to perpetuate future generations of people who are not literate.”

        To support the plaintiffs’ claim, the complaint cited the persistent and pervasive failure of the city’s public school students to achieve grade-level results on standard literacy assessments as compared with students in other districts and schools in the state.

        Lack of reading material and online access, unfocused teacher professional development, high levels of teacher turnover, and ineffectual intervention were also alleged.

        The defendants—the governor of Michigan and a number of state education officials—filed a motion to dismiss the action last December on the grounds that a right to literacy cannot be found in the actual text of the U.S. Constitution or in any U.S. Supreme Court decision.

        Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never declared literacy to be a constitutional right, it opened the door for a future ruling on this point by commenting in the 1973 case San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that some “identifiable quantum of education”—some small piece—might be a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of other legal rights.

        Both the amicus brief ILA signed on to and the underlying complaint argue that basic literacy is the “identifiable quantum” contemplated in Rodriguez, the indispensable skill required to exercise First Amendment and other rights.

        The brief further asserts that the development over the last 30 years of reliable measures of literacy attainment needed for things like getting a driver’s license, reading a W-2 form, or applying for employment provides the court with an appropriate standard for judging whether the dismal performance of Detroit’s schools rises to the level of a constitutional violation.

        A ninth-grade Flesch–Kincaid or Lexile Framework reading level was suggested to the court as the minimum level for exercising constitutional rights, participating fully in the political process, and taking advantage of numerous other legal benefits.

        Also joining the amicus brief were Kappa Delta Pi, the international honor society in education, and the National Association for Multicultural Education.

        dan-manganDan Mangan is the Director of Public Affairs at the International Literacy Association.

         





        Read More
      Back to Top

      Categories

      Recent Posts

      Archives