Literacy Now

With the filing of a dismissal motion earlier this month in federal district court, the stage was set for a class action suit seeking redress for children in Detroit public schools on the basis of a denial of their constitutional right to literacy.

The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, five students from the lowest performing public schools in Detroit, MI, allege they have been denied access to literacy by being deprived of evidence-based instruction and being subject to school conditions that prevent learning in violation of their rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Rick Snyder, governor of Michigan

Defendants in the case, filed in September, are the governor of Michigan, eight members of the Michigan State Board of Education, and three other education officials. The plaintiffs contend that decades of disinvestment in and deliberate indifference to Detroit schools on the part of state officials have denied them and other similarly situated school children access to the most basic building block of education: literacy.

Moreover the schools that the plaintiffs attend serve almost exclusively low-income children of color. The complaint asserts that the abysmal conditions in these schools would be unthinkable in schools serving predominantly white, affluent student populations establishing that the schooling afforded the plaintiffs is both separate and unequal.

The plaintiffs contend that equal access to effective literacy instruction is a fundamental constitutional right. However, there is no federal case-law precedent directly establishing a right to literacy.

The plaintiffs rely heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 case that dealt with a Texas statute that excluded undocumented children from the state’s public education system. The court stated that a status-based denial of basic education does not square with the framework of equality embodied in the Equal Protection Clause.

On November 17, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint, a standard first reply to the initiation of a civil suit. The motion raises technical matters of legal procedure and jurisdiction, and it alleges substantive defects in the plaintiffs’ case.

Defining literacy

How the Detroit plaintiffs define literacy is intrinsic to the structure of their argument. The complaint defines literacy as “the skill to decode letters and words, the ability to read and write well enough to access knowledge and communicate with the world, and the ability to compose, comprehend, synthesize, reflect upon, and critique.”

Building on this definition, the complaint claims that the necessary prerequisite for effective literacy education is a basic environment for teaching and learning. It then goes on to describe the most egregious components of the learning environment in Detroit public schools.

The schools are alleged to be vermin infested, have unsafe drinking water, and have extreme building temperatures. There is little support for the many children who have mental health needs, experience violent trauma, or are English learners. Teacher vacancy and high turnover are systemic, and classes are often taught by students or left unsupervised.

What these conditions have wrought is not surprising. Student achievement outcomes as measured by state and national testing data tied to the Detroit school system’s demographics are dismal, a fact the complaint ties to the lack of any system for literacy instruction and remediation.

To remedy the breakdown of meaningful education in Detroit’s schools, the plaintiffs are asking the court to order the defendants to implement evidence-based programs for literacy instruction and to establish a system of statewide accountability for their performance, including monitoring, intervention, and the provision of compensatory and remedial education.

Who operates Detroit’s public schools?

The defendants assert that Michigan’s constitution only requires the legislature to maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools and that  local school districts have the responsibility to provide for the education of their pupils.

The state never ran Detroit’s schools, according to this argument; although, emergency managers have been appointed to supplant local authority when necessary. Consequently, the defendants claim they cannot be held responsible for an alleged denial of rights owed to the plaintiffs.

Prior to Michigan State’s sequence of administrative interventions, the defendants point out, the Detroit Public School District experienced steep operating losses that reached a deficit of more than $100 million by 1988. Pupil enrollment declined steadily since 1981, and the city’s population also shrank, resulting in an ever-decreasing tax base.

In response to this and other recession-driven emergencies in the state, Michigan enacted successive laws to address local government financial crises. These laws provide for state appointment of officials who act on behalf of local government. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs have conflated the state’s appointment of local officials with state control of local schools.

Constitutional claim a mere proxy

With respect to the plaintiffs’ claim of a constitutional right of access to effective literacy instruction, the defendants note that this putative right has no support in case law or in the text of the constitution.  The defendants cite San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, a 1973 case where the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question whether education is a fundamental right protected by the constitution and held that no such right exists.

The defendants contend that the claimed right of access to literacy is a mere proxy for a right to education, which not only presupposes something that was rejected in Rodriguez but also asks that the Constitution be used to guarantee an outcome of the educational process. Their reasoning is predicated on the conceptual overlap between the dictionary definitions of literacy and access.

Since literacy means “the ability to read and write,” according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, and access means “the ability to make use of,” a person cannot obtain and make use of literacy without going through the process of becoming literate, and that process, the defendants assert, means nothing more than general education.

Furthermore, the defendants do not accept that other schools in the state constitute the appropriate comparison group for assessing the alleged disparate treatment. They insist that such comparisons must be contained to the same school district, a perspective that relieves them from discussing the schools' conditions outlined in the plaintiffs’ complaint, other than observing that such conditions equally affect all students in the same school regardless of race.

A decision on the defendant’s motion is not expected until early next year.

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

There are conversations in the classroom that are hard to have. They can be about history; they can be about what is happening in a neighborhood today; they can be about what’s happening around the world.

The ball often lands at an educator’s feet. How can the conversations start? How can they be worthwhile? How can a conversation change anything?

Cornelius Minor facilitated an on-the-fly addition to the 2016 ILA Conference and Exhibits program in Boston Sunday simply titled “Impromptu Conversation Led by Cornelius Minor.” The session was meant to engage ILA colleagues about how to talk about recent tragedies around the world—events that have had conference attendees talking, that have had the media enraptured, that have left most people flummoxed about what to do next.

Minor, a staff developer for Teachers College at Columbia University and a strong advocate for equity in the classroom, did not spend an hour rehashing new stories from the last month, nor did he rail against injustices. Instead, he took the time to show how to model a conversation about a difficult topic using a method that could be used on a variety of subjects or tailored for a variety of classrooms.

His philosophy is that to talk about emotionally charged or difficult topics effectively, you need to start simple. He showed a silent cartoon clip about the impact a situation had on one individual. Despite great room for interpretation of the clip, he allowed for little discussion, which served as a way of collecting thoughts and readying oneself more before communicating.

Questions were posed including, Why did you come? How do you feel? How do you hope to feel? Starting in partnerships, the standing-room only group dialoged. Eventually, discussion groups of two, four,  eight, then whole-room discussed more challenging questions about the role literacy educators play in getting students to talk about tough topics.

There was talk about dominant and minority communities, parental reaction to difficult conversations, and reaction to assumed opinions.

Attendees included classroom teachers, school administrators, researchers, and parents in the form of exhibitors and other support staff. In conversations that sometimes became emotional, Minor asked several questions, including How do you engage parents who don’t want teachers to raise difficult topics in the classroom? Then questions moved on to others people asking What can I do? How can I effect change? What is next?

Between questions, Minor encouraged people to take time to think before speaking. In between answers, when emotions began to run high, he paused the conversation for 15 seconds to “reset” the room and did the same each time four people had shared. He said whether it is group of adults or students, it’s important to take  time and keep balance in the room, and pausing or moving the conversation is one way to guide students through thoughtful discussion.

When the discussion continued, one man said it’s important to realize these issues and tragedies are not about the abstract, they are about life.

“I need us to realize the topic we’re talking about is not academic,” he said.

Another added, “The structure in school is not reflective of the reality our children are living in.” He said children come into schools worried about what is happening in their neighborhood and across the country as much, and sometimes more than, adults. That ignoring their concerns and their needs to share their feelings is to deny their voices.

“This is not a one-size-fits-all answer,” said a district superintendent. “We’ve quieted the voices of our children. We’ve quieted the voices of our teachers. We need to let teachers do their work.”

At the end of the hour, Minor suggested work continue through the creation of a letter teachers could submit to administrators about how important it is to talk to students about controversial topics including race, sexuality, and gender. He also suggested working on a “courage toolkit” that would give educators ideas on how to approach difficult conversations with fellow teachers and administration, and even how to build trust with parents.

In the end, many stayed behind to continue the conversation; Minor said he would be in the room as long as anyone wanted to stay. And while there were no concrete answers when the crowd broke up, there was the beginning of a community.

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.

More than 100 educators were in attendance at a special session at the ILA 2016 Conference & Exhibits in Boston, MA, on Saturday to get the first look at a draft of the ILA Standards for Literacy Professionals 2017.

When all is said and done, the standards, which focus on the roles of reading/literacy specialists, literacy coaches, and literacy coordinators/supervisors, won’t be completed and approved until 2018, illustrating the long path to revision that includes meetings, drafts, public comment, and final approval.

Standards for Reading Professionals establishes criteria for reading professional preparation programs. The Standards describe what candidates for the reading profession should know and be able to do in professional settings. They are the result of a deliberative process that drew from professional expertise and research in the reading field.

Last year, a select committee made up largely of teacher educators, started on the 2017 revision of the Standards for Literacy Professionals, last revised in 2010. These standards, once reviewed and accepted by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), will become part of CAEP’s program evaluations.
Within the Foundational Knowledge standard, Helen Perkins from the University of Memphis and the lead writer on Standard 1, said one change was the definition of literacy as reading, writing, and communication, making it consistent with ILA’s definition, rather than the former reading-centric definition.

“All literacy professionals need to know where they came from and where they are going,” Perkins said.

When speaking about the second standard, lead writer Beverly DeVries from South Nazarene University in Oklahoma said a common theme of the revisions is the consideration of social, cultural, and linguistic diversity. The standards address not only the diversity of learners, but the diversity of strategies necessary to teach those learners.

Ginny Goatley from the University of Albany in New York, the lead writer on the third standard, addressing assessment and evaluation, said it’s important now to think broadly about literacy, particularly in early education when oral language is beginning to emerge. She also said the standard focuses on “the strong trend toward collaboration between teachers” and “how to talk about assessments.”

In the current standards, standard 4 focused primarily on “diversity,” said lead writer Doris Walker-Dalhouse of Marquette University in Wisconsin. The proposed revision also considers “equity,” which speaks not only about the make-up of classrooms and the materials used, but also the use of “instruction that is relevant and sensitive to individual literacy needs and embraces their diversity as an asset.”

Standard 5 in the 2010 revision was known as “Literate Environment.” In the current proposal it is called “Literacy Learners & the Learning Environment.”

Allison Swan Dagen, from West Virginia University, was the lead writer on  revised Standard 5. “Mainly, it is foregrounded in the notion that we need to meet the needs of the digital learner and a firm foundation of language and literacy development.”

Jacey Ippolito, the lead writer on the final of the drafted revisions, Standard 6/“Professional Learning & Leadership”, said he believes this standard supports all of the others.

For example, “literacy professionals require a wide variety of ongoing learning experiences—to acquire, refine, and develop the mindsets that enable them to share literacy-focused instructional skills and practices.”

Finally, once drafted, a new Standard 7 will address clinical and field experiences for literacy professionals. To add this standard to the revisions, the committee had to apply for a waiver from CAEP, Kern said, which allowed it under the condition that professionals could complete their work in their own schools and that the standard would not apply to classroom teachers.

Kern said changes were being made to the draft as recently as two days prior to the presentation and revisions will continue until they are submitted to CAEP in July 2017.

In attendance at the Conference presentation of the standards draft were college professors, district administrators, and teachers. After each lead writer summarized the changes to each of the standards, the audience broke into smaller groups to discuss what they thought of the revisions at first blush. Questions and comments were collected on index cards and submitted to the committee.

Kern said the cards would be reviewed and she expected they would inform additions to the Standard Revision FAQ.

The draft standards can be found on the ILA website, along with an opportunity to provide feedback. The survey will be online until July 31.

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.

Last year a select committee made up largely of teacher educators appointed with the approval of the ILA Board began an extensive effort to produce the 2017 revision of the Standards for Literacy Professionals, last revised in 2010. These standards, once reviewed and accepted by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), will become part of CAEP’s program evaluations thereafter.

The committee’s first draft of the standards pertaining to specialized literacy professionals, including reading/literacy specialists, literacy coaches, and literacy coordinators, will be unveiled at a session on Saturday, July 9 at 1:30 p.m. during the ILA 2016 Conference & Exhibits in Boston.

Aside from being the first to hear about the key changes, attendees will have an opportunity to provide feedback and give input to help shape the final version of these standards. This session is ideal for administrators, reading teachers, literacy specialists, researchers, and teacher educators.

“The results of the working committee include a major shift for reading specialists,” said Rita Bean, cochair of the committee and professor at University of Pittsburgh. Among other changes, the Standards will now align to ILA’s research brief The Multiple Roles of School-Based Specialized Literacy Professionals.

“We needed to understand key shifts,” said Diane Kern, also cochair of the Standards committee and associate professor at the University of Rhode Island. “Folks are not just reading specialists, they’re literacy specialists.”

“We’re preparing not only literacy specialists, but an expert literacy teacher who can take on a role of leadership,” Kern said. The Standards are used to inform teacher preparation accreditations around the world. “ILA is the association others are looking to for guidance and leadership as they write their own standards.”

The draft standards will be published on ILA’s website following the conference session for educators to review. A public comment period will open in April 2017.

TheILA 2016 Conference & Exhibits will be July 9–11 in Boston, MA, with more than 6,000 attendees eager to cultivate new teaching practices. With over 300 sessions, including several new additions to the schedule, and the popular Preconference Institutes on July 8, the weekend is sure to be a memorable one. Learn more about what’s coming up at this summer’s conference at ilaconference.org.

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.

The ability to speak multiple languages is a coveted skill in today’s economy. The goal is to create a learning environment that promotes language acquisition while making the curriculum accessible to everyone. For policymakers and educators worldwide, the question is how to foster that environment in an era of tight budgets, diverse priorities, and political sensitivities.

Schools that truly embrace multilingualism report higher levels of community engagement and academic achievement across the board. If implemented poorly, though, such programs can further marginalize groups that aren’t proficient in the dominant language.

To stimulate fresh thinking on this critical topic, the International Literacy Association (ILA) recently convened a roundtable with a distinguished group of advocacy and policy experts in Washington, DC. In a wide-ranging conversation led by award-winning journalist Diane Brady, experts shared their thinking on the best practices and priorities for achieving true multilingual learning. In a three-part blog series, we’ll explore the key takeaways from the conversation.

Parents have long recognized the importance of English as the language of global business, but as the world becomes more interconnected and emerging economies gain strength, it is clear that multilingualism is prerequisite for success. In the U.S. and beyond, dual-language programs are oversubscribed, noted Beatriz Arias, vice president and chief development officer for the Center for Applied Linguistics. “Parents are recognizing the importance of their children being bilingual or multilingual—the economic benefits of that for their kids.”

Multilingualism “is going to be the differentiator,” said Mariana Haynes, senior fellow, Alliance for Excellent Education, adding that students understand the value of having those skills on their resume.

Deputy Secretary Mohamed Abdel-Kader, the International Foreign Language Education Office of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Post-Secondary Education, suggested engaging the business community to stress the importance of language learning. “I think that’s incredibly important, because as the business community articulates the need for at least a basic understanding of language and some of the cultural nuances, parents are thinking about their kids, when they graduate college, those kids need to have a job.”

Multilingualism “is not a partisan issue,” Abdel-Kader said. This is the right thing to do for our kids. It is the right thing to do for our businesses. It is the right thing to do for our communities. The kids need these skills to be able to communicate.”

At the simplest level, Arias said, “We need leadership at all different levels in order to encourage growth and understanding of the importance of multilingualism—we need to value multilingualism, and have clear ways to do that.”

“We need to dispel the myths surrounding bilingualism primarily that learning two or even three languages as a child brings confusion and lowers academic achievement,” Marty Abbott, executive director of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages added. “We have research that proves the opposite.”

Within the education community, we need to equip educators with the resources and tools they need to embrace and encourage multilingualism, noted Hector Montenegro, associate, Margarita Calderón & Associates. “Educators need additional resources and information about how best to work collaborative so that we can have a more accepting and welcoming environment—school and classroom—where teachers can teach effectively.”

Haynes noted that fragmented leader and teacher development should be addressed in order to create structures for language learning. “Leaders play a huge role in setting the tone. If teachers work in isolation, it is impossible to make this happen. You have a lot of district policies that are very much at odds with the kinds of things that you want to have happening within schools.”

We also need to take a step outside of the schools themselves and consider how governments can support and foster a culture of multilingualism, Abbott suggested, and continue “to build champions in Congress,” to push forward research on the importance of languages. “Hopefully we can have an impact working together.”

Leslie Engle Young, Director of Impact for Pencils of Promise, added policy considerations should take into account the best practices and proven strategies that already exist around multilingual learning. “It’s getting the case studies, bringing the evidence forward, and showing evidence from abroad. We should be cross-learning with evidence from across the board.”