A few Reading Today issues back, I pondered the importance—and the challenges—of educational leadership, particularly what it takes to lead in the midst of policy. I made the following observation:
“…politicians and the public can fight the fight, but regardless of how we feel or where we stand on policy decisions, the job of public educators is to implement what has been put in place by a vote or decision (state or federal).”
Nowhere is this more evident than with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), in which the continuing debate is undoubtedly a hot topic, but for the wrong reasons. Equally full of passionate support and disdain, the “noise” is coming at teachers from all directions—from teachers unions to parents, from media outlets to state legislators, and even from publishers shopping what’s billed to be CCSS-aligned materials.
The unspoken implication for teachers is that whether or not they agree or disagree with education policy, their job is to teach within it; deliver student outcomes as prescribed and/or interpreted by an educational overseeing body. That leaves the average teacher wondering who to follow. Sometimes the policy noise can be deafening and, worse yet, defeating to the very teachers it is meant to guide.
As the largest global professional network of literacy educators, we have the duty to cut through that noise. Each educator that comes upon us and considers joining weighs the value of what we offer and considers us as worthy (or not) of their dime and time. When an educator makes the choice to join, they are likely seeing IRA not only as a resource for supporting fine classroom instruction in reading, but also hopeful that IRA will support what is right and good for reading instruction at a greater level—one of influencing those who create the policy under which they deliver instruction. Literacy educators around the world want an advocate.
We can tell our members what makes for good instruction—the research and evidence that produces student outcomes—but it may be of marginal use if we are not assertive within the global realm of education in informing and influencing the bodies of government that craft the policy.
This is no mean feat for IRA; within our ranks, we have disagreement over what is effective. But arguing amongst ourselves which body of research is valid can no longer be an excuse for not supporting—and advocating for—teachers everywhere. We believe our job is to convene the collegial dialogue and the debate in a way that ultimately informs good practice for inclusion in education policy.
We live in an age when taking a public stance on an issue often includes vilifying the opposing view. The fallout carnage of the vehement argument of right and wrong perspectives has a wearying effect on our teachers and serves no useful purpose for them as to what they need to teach literacy to our children. IRA is stepping up and finding the right balance with serving literacy educators by continuing to translate research to sound classroom teaching and renewing our charge of advocating on their behalf for what is effective instructional literacy practice.
In doing so, there have been times when we’ve been accused of being pro-Common Core, or criticized simply for not demonstrating enough favor for or against education policies, Common Core or otherwise. But the truth is, in the end, our stance on any one particular issue does not make us who we are as the International Reading Association. In fact, the truth is simple: We are pro-educator. We are for teachers. That is our stance, and if it’s Common Core-aligned research and lesson plans our members need, then that is what we are going to provide.
We owe it to teachers—our members—to do just that, as well as to continue to voice, with fervor, what is necessary to build sound education policy.
Marcie Craig Post (mpost@/) is the executive director of the International Reading Association. This column originally appeared in Reading Today magazine. Members can read the rest of the magazine in digital form and non-members can join IRA here.