Addressingthe“Cris is” inAdolescentLiteracy

TerrySalinger

American Inst itutesforResearch

ThispaperwaspreparedfortheU.S.DepartmentofEducation(ED),OfficeofElementaryandSecondaryEducation,SmallerLearningCommunitiesProgramunderContractNumberED‐07‐CO‐0106withEDJAssociates,Inc.inHerndon,VA.TheviewsexpressedinthispublicationdonotnecessarilyrepresentthepositionsorpoliciesofED,nordoreferencestotradenames,commercialproducts,services,ororganizationsimplyendorsementbytheU.S.government.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

SomeReasonsWhyManyStudentsStruggleasAdolescents............................................................ 1

TheDevelopmentalContinuumFromEarlyReadingOnward ........................................................... 3

InsufficientGuidanceFromStateStandards ....................................................................................... 4

ReadingforMeaningandLearning ...................................................................................................... 5

OutcomesofLowLiteracyforStudentsinSecondarySchools .......................................................... 7

PlanningtoMeettheAdolescentLiteracyCrisis................................................................................. 9

Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 15

References ........................................................................................................................................... 16

_______ Page 1

IntroductionPolicymakers,educators,parents,thepublic,andundoubtedlymanysecondarystudentsthemselveshaveheardabouttheadolescentliteracycrisisinthiscountry(Jacobs,2008).1Atthemostfundamentallevel,thegistofthecrisisisthattheliteracyskillsofmanystudentsingrades4to12aresoalarminglylowthatthestudentshavedifficultymeetingtheacademicchallengesofhighschoolandareillpreparedforpostsecondaryeducationandtheworkforce.Theterm“literacy”hascometoincludereading,writing,andmanyotherskills,butitismostoftendataonstudents’readingskillsthatgenerateconcern.Thispaperdiscussesaspectsofthecrisisinadolescentliteracyfromtheperspectivethatthecrisisrequiresfocusedactionatthelocalandstatelevels.Newliteracyplansareneeded—onesthatacknowledgethevariationinstudents’literacyachievement,layoutwaystoaddressthisvariation,andneverlosesightofpostsecondaryschooloutcomesforstudentswithlowliteracyskills.Indevelopingplansforaddressingtheneedsofstrugglingadolescentreaders,educatorsoftentrytoadaptapproachesintheearlygrades.However,eventhoughthereismuchtolearnfromlookingatkindergartentograde3readingprograms,itisoftenthestrategiesinplaceintheearlygradesthathavefailedtopreparestudentsforthetransitiontotheincreasinglysophisticatedliteracytasksadolescentsencounterastheymovethroughmiddleandhighschool.

SomeReasonsWhyManyStudentsStruggleasAdolescentsResearchonthecausesandcorrelatesofadolescentreadingdifficultiesisextensive.Oneoverarchingmessageisthatthesedifficultiesarediverseandcomplex(Scammaccaetal.,2007;Torgesenetal.,2007).Ashortlistofpossiblecausesincludeslearningdisabilities(SwansonandHoskyn,2001);alackofstrongEnglishskills(ShortandFitzsimmons,2007);andstudents’lowlevelsofbeliefintheirabilitytosucceedatreadingandsubsequentlackofengagementinacademictasks(Guthrie,2008;Yudowitchetal.,2008).Debateexistsaboutwhenandinwhatformsthesedifficultiesmanifestthemselvesandwhetherearlyidentificationandinterventionwillforestalllaterneeds.DatafromtheNationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP)showthatadolescentliteracylevelshaveremainedrelatively“flat”fordecades(NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,2009),andtwostudiesofstudentsonthecuspofadolescenceshedsomelightonwhytherehavebeentoofewsafetynetstocatchstudentsearlier. 1 Various perspectives on this topic are presented in the spring 2008 volume of the Harvard Educational Review, 78(1); see also the websites for the Alliance for Excellent Education (www.all4ed.com) and the National High School Center (www.betterhighschools.org).

_______ Page 2

Leach,Scarborough,andRescorla(2003)wereinterestedinstudentswhowereidentifiedasstrugglingreadersingrades4and5andspecificallywhethertheyhadhadearlierdifficultiesthathadbeenoverlooked.Theygatheredquestionnairedatafromparentsandexaminedtheschoolrecordsof2,300studentsingrades4and5totracetheiracademichistories,especiallyrelatedtopreviousreadingdifficulties.Theyalsoassessedthestudentswithabatteryofreadingandcognitiveabilitiestests.Thedatashowedthatalmosthalfthestudentscouldbeclassifiedas“lateemerging”poorreadersbecausetheirdifficultieshadnotbeenapparentinearliergrades.Thesestudents’readingproblemswere“heterogeneouswithregardtotheirskilldeficits”(p.221);thatis,theyvariedenoughthatitwasunlikelythatoneinterventionprogramwouldbeappropriatetoaddresstheneedsofallthestudentsintheirsample.Itisalsonoteworthythateventhoughmorethantwo‐thirdsofthesestudentsseemedtohaveweakphonicsanddecodingskillswhentestedingrades4and5,theinitialsignoftheirproblemscamethroughtheirpoorcomprehensionwhentheywereaskedtoreadandmakemeaningindependently.BulyandValencia(2002;ValenciaandBuly,2004)studied108fourth‐gradersfrom17ofthe20elementaryschoolsinalarge,ethnicallydiversedistrictinWashingtonState.Thesestudentshadscoredinthebottom2of4levelsontheirstatereadingtest.Theresearchers,likeLeachandhercolleagues,wantedtoknowaboutvariabilityindifficultiesofthesestudents,whoseless‐than‐proficientresultsputthem“belowthebar”forapassingscore.Theyadministereddiagnosticteststothestudentsandusedfactoranalysistodevelopprofilesofstudents’performance.Thedatayielded10somewhatoverlappingclusters,whichtheyreportedas6profiles.Only9percentofthestudentsintheirsamplehadidentifiablelearningdisabilities;thesestudentswereweakincomprehension,fluency,andwordidentification.Theotherstudentsofferedanarrayofstrengthsandweaknesses.Approximately18percentofthestudentsinthesamplehaddifficultyidentifyingwordseitherbyrecognizingsightwordsorapplyingdecodingskills;manyofthesestudentswereEnglishlanguagelearners.Approximately41percentofthesamplereadslowly.Individualstudentsdifferedintheaccuracywithwhichtheyidentifiedwords,but,asawhole,thegroupdemonstratedweaksilentreadingfluency,whichaffectedtheoverallcomprehensionofwhattheyread.Theremainingstudents,approximately33percent,couldoftenidentifywordscorrectlyandreadwithrelativefluency,buttheirabilitiestoderivemeaningfromtextseemedweak—justatthepointintheirschoolliveswhencomprehensionbecomesanessentialskillforsuccess.Studentsinbothstudiesprobablyallhaddifficultymovingfromelementarytomiddleschool.Grade4isalmostuniversallyrecognizedasthepointatwhichstudentsmustmakeatransitionfrom“learningtoread”to“readingtolearn”(Chall,1983;Challetal.,1990;ChallandJacobs,2003).Studentsenteringgrade4findlittleornoexplicitreadinginstructionandmaymoveamongdepartmentalizedclasses.Theyalsoencounterinstructionalmaterialthatvariesinquality,isunlikelytofollowanarrativepattern,containsmorecontentthanpreviously,andhasfewertextualaidsthanthe“basal”

_______ Page 3

materialfoundintheearlygrades(Kamil,2010).Studentsmustreadindependentlywithendgoalsofcomprehendingwhattheyhavereadandgainingcontentknowledge,oftenwithoutthescaffoldingandsupportthatteacherspreviouslyprovided.

TheDevelopmental ContinuumFromEarly ReadingOnward Almost30yearsago,Chall(1983)wrotethatreadingstrategiesandskillsdevelopinaseriesofstagesthatarestillrelevantandinformative.Preschoolersandmanykindergartenstudentsareinthe“gettingreadytoreadstage,”whichisfollowedbytheintroductionofformalinstructionandthe“learningandpracticingbeginningreadingskills”stage.Manyofthebehaviorsstudentsneedtolearnarestillthesame,although,increasingly,electronictextispartofthemediafromwhichstudentsinthesestagesexploreandlearn(BusandNeuman,2009).Learningtoreadwithfluency—speedandaccuracy—isanimportantgoalforthesestages.Atgrade4,studentspassintoanewstage,whichChalltermed“readingforlearningthenew.”Asmentionedabove,thispassagerepresentsasignificanttransitionandis,inmanyways,theentryintothechallengesof“adolescentreading.”Eventhougheducatorsoftenrecognizethedramaticchangeintheschoolliteracycontextasstudentsmovefromgradetograde,theyalsohavemanyreasonstooverlookitsimportance.Onereasonmaybethehopethatcarefullydelivered,scientificallybasedearlyreadinginstructionalignedtostringentstatestandardswillpreparestudentsforthetransition.UnderNoChildLeftBehindrequirements,studentsinkindergartentograde2haverarelybeentested,otherthanwiththeDynamicIndicatorsofBasicEarlyLiteracySkills(DIBELS)orsimilarbenchmarktests.Thelogicofvariousiterationsofreadingprogramsandstrongearlychildhoodeducationingeneralisthatsupportive,well‐informedteachersattendingtostudents’oralreading,theirinventedspelling,andtheirfirstexpressionsofcomprehensionwillpreparethemforgrade4.Standardizedtestingatgrade3willthenindicatetheirprogressalongthistrajectory,rightbeforestudentsmakethecriticaltransitionto“readingtolearn.”Thetimelinecanbebeneficial,especiallyforchildrentraditionallyconsideredatriskbecausetheydidnotattendhigh‐qualitypreschoolsandhavenotgainedtherichvocabulariesandwidestorehouseofconceptsneededforearlyreadingacquisition(HartandRisley,1995).Butthisperiodofmovementfrompre‐readeronwardmustincludecarefulprogressmonitoringanddifferentiatedinstruction,asneeded,toaddressidentifiedgapsinlearningbeforestudentsareexpectedtoreadandmakesenseoftextindependently.Expectationsofwhatstudentsshouldknowandbeabletodoasreadersshiftdramaticallyfromgrade3tograde4or5.Challrecognizedthesechanges,althoughshecouldnotanticipatethevarietyinreadingtextsandtasksthattechnologyhasintroduced(Alvermann,2001;GuzzettiandGamboa,2004;Hargood,2007).Although

_______ Page 4

thesechangesdonotnegatethefactthatstudents’readingskillsarestilldeveloping,ithasbecomeincreasinglyimportantforthemtoapplybothfoundationalandcomprehensionskillsintoaflexible,strategicapproachtodifferentkindsofreading.Writingaboutwhatshetermeda“lifespandevelopmentalperspectiveonreading,”Alexander(2005)acknowledgedthechangesthatreadersmustmakeintheirstrategicprocessingthatmustaccompanytheirtransitionto“readingtolearn.”Theperiodfromgrade4tograde8iscriticalinstudents’development,andthetransitiontohighschoolatgrade9canbeevenmoreoverwhelmingacademically(GrossmanandCooney,2009;LegtersandKerr,2001).Chall’sterminologyforthisperiodprovidesonlyasuggestionofthecomplexityofthetasksstudentsmustnowperform:“readingmultiplepointsofviewandconstructingandreconstructingmeaning.”Evenstudentswhoseemedtodowellinmiddleschoolareoftenchallengedbythesocialandacademicshiftswhentheymovetolarge,oftenimpersonalhighschools,wheretheymustformnewrelationshipswithteachersandpeerswhilesimultaneouslyadjustingtoanewlevelofacademicrigor.

Insuff ic ient GuidanceFromStateStandardsThechangeininstructionalcontextthatoccursinthefourthgradeandbeyondisrarelyfullyreflectedinstateEnglishlanguageartsstandardsor,toalargeextent,intheassessmentsalignedtothem.Comparisonsofstatestandardsandassessmentsrevealsignificantvariationindefinitionsoftheessentialknowledgeandskillsthatstudentsmustacquireandintherigor,expectations,design,anddifficultyofteststhatmeasurestudentachievement(Linn,2006).Atthesametime,thecurrentinterpretationofstandards‐basedaccountabilityseemstohaveincreasedthepracticeof“teachingtothetest,”resultinginthenarrowingofschools’curriculatoaspectsofthestandardsthataretested(CenteronEducationPolicy,2010).Writingaboutreadingtesting,Paris(2005)hasarguedthatstandardizedtestsgivenduringelementarygradesassessprimarily“constrainedskills,”suchasletter‐soundknowledge,decoding,andlow‐levelcomprehension.Theseskills,hemaintains,arequicklylearnedandeasilytested,butinitialproficiencywiththeseskillsmaymaskashallowoverallmastery,whichwillultimatelyimpedestudents’abilitytoreadindependentlywithdeepcomprehension.StudentsintheLeach,Scarborough,andRescorla(2003)studymayhavedonewellonthefirstreadingteststheytook.ArecentstudyfundedbytheBillandMelindaGatesFoundationillustrateshowstatestandardscannarrowthescopeofwhatstudentsexperience(CounciloftheGreatCitySchoolsandtheAmericanInstitutesforResearch,inpreparation).Oneaspectofthestudyfocusedspecificallyonfourdistricts—Atlanta,Georgia;Boston,Massachusetts;Charlotte,NorthCarolina;andCleveland,Ohio.Thesedistricts,allmembersofthe

_______ Page 5

CounciloftheGreatCitySchools,participateintheTrialUrbanDistrictAssessment,whichadministersNAEPreading,mathematics,andscienceassessmentsatgrades4and8todistrictsamples(seehttp://nationsreportcard.gov/tuda.aspfordetails).Researcherslookedfortheextentofalignmentamongthesestates’readingstandardsatgrades3,4,5,7,and8;districtstandardswhereapplicable;andthetasksimpliedbytheframeworkandspecificationsforthe2003NAEPreadingassessment.Inadditiontocontentalignment,theresearcherscomparedthesedocumentstodeterminetheirequivalenceintermsofcognitivedemandsstudentswereexpectedtoexertastheyread.Inmanycases,eventhoughthestatestandardsingrades3,4,and5impliedadevelopmentalprogressionofskills,itwasthestandardatgrade5thatmatchedthelevelofcognitivedemandexpectedatgrade4byNAEP.Examplesofskillsnottaughtuntilgrade5aredistinguishingrelevantfromirrelevantinformationinatextandunderstandinganauthor’spurposeforwriting.Thissuggeststhatfourth‐gradersinthissample—whoareinthecriticaltransitionperiod—arenotbeingexpectedtoreadwiththelevelofsophisticationdemandedbyNAEP.

ReadingforMeaningandLearning Aconsiderationoftaskandtextsophisticationhasrecentlydominatedthediscourseaboutstudents’reading.Forexample,theCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS;www.commoncorestandards.org)emphasizethatstudentsneedtolearntoapplysophisticatedskillsandstrategiesinalltheirreading,withtheskillsandstrategiesconsciouslydifferentiatedbycontentareas.TheCCSSandothersourcesemphasizethatreadingtasksincollegeandtheworkplacearemostoftensophisticated,data‐filledinformationaltexts,withcomplexstructuresnecessitatedbytheinformationtheypresent.Butforadolescents,whatdotheseincreasinglysophisticatedtextslooklike,andwhatarethetasksstudentsmustperform?NAEPisthesinglemostdependableandconsistentmeasureofaggregatereadinglevelsofstudentsingrades4and8atthenationalandstatelevelsandnationallyatgrade12.NAEPsetsdemandingnationalgoalsforliteracy,includeslongandvariedreadingtasksontheassessment,andelicitsresponsestomultiple‐choiceandconstructed‐responseitems.ManystatesandcommercialtestdevelopershaveusedNAEPasthemodelforstatetests,butlocalstandard‐settingprocessesmeanthattheactualdifficultylevelsofstatetestsdifferwidely.Disparitiesareconsistentlypresentwhenstatetestsandstudents’scoresonthemarecomparedwithNAEPstatedata(McCombsetal.,2005).NAEPalsopublishesachievementlevelsatgrades4,8,and12foreachtestedacademicsubject.Theachievementlevelsprovideconcisedescriptionsofthekindsofreadingthetest‐takershavebeenabletodowhentheirscoresfallintotheBasic,Proficient,andAdvancedcategories.ThedescriptorfortheAdvancedlevelisagoodstartingpointforunderstandingtheconceptofsophisticatedreading.Table1presentstheAdvancedachievement‐leveldescriptorsforgrades4,8,and12.Achievementatthislevel

_______ Page 6

assumesmasteryofthespecificskillsandstrategiesrepresentedbytheBasicandProficientachievementlevelsaswell.Asthetableshows,studentsscoringatthislevelmustbesophisticatedreaderswhocancomprehendandmakeinferencesaboutdifficulttext,thenuseittoexplainorjustifytheiropinions.OntheNAEP,sophisticatedreadingtasksspanliterary,informational,andproceduralgenres.

Table1: Advanced‐Level ReadingTasksforGrades4, 8, and12

Grade4Advanced‐level readers shouldbeable

to

Grade8Advanced‐level readers shouldbeableto

Grade12Advanced‐level readers shouldbeableto

• Makecomplexinferences

• Constructandsupporttheirinferentialunderstandingofthetext

• Applytheirunderstandingofatexttomakeandsupportajudgment

• Makeconnectionswithinandacrosstextsandexplaincausalrelations

• Evaluateandjustifythestrengthofsupportingevidenceandthequalityofanauthor’spresentation

• Managetheprocessingdemandsofanalysisandevaluationbystating,explaining,andjustifying

• Analyzeboththemeaningandtheformofthetext

• Providecomplete,explicit,andprecisetextsupportfortheiranalyseswithspecificexamples

• Readacrossmultipletextsforavarietyofpurposes,analyzingandevaluatingthemindividuallyandasaset

Source:AdaptedfromNAEPachievement‐leveldescriptors.RetrievedJune28,2010,fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.asp#2009ald.TheNAEPachievement‐leveldescriptorspresentonepictureofsophisticatedreading;studiesdoneatACT,thetestingcompany,presentacomplementaryone.Drawingonanextensiveanalysisofdatafrommiddleschoolstudents,researchersfoundthatfewerthan2in10studentsingrade8wereontargettobereadyforentry‐levelcollegecourseworkwhentheygraduatefromhighschool(ACT,2008).Additionalanalysesofteststakenbyhighschoolstudentssuggestthatmosthighschoolexperiencesleavestudentssoinadequatelypreparedforentry‐levelcourseworkin2‐and4‐yearcolleges,tradeschools,andtechnicalschoolsthatsuccessinthesesituationswilldependontheavailabilityofremedialhelpofsomekind(ACT,2009).Althoughtheresearchersfoundgapsinmathematicsandscienceknowledge,readingseemedtobethemostseriousareaofconcern,primarilybecausereadingissuchanessentialcomponentforsuccessinthepostsecondaryworld.ChiefamongthechallengesstudentsseemtofaceistheabilitytoreadandunderstandwhatACTreferstoascomplexliteraryandinformationaltexts.Informationaltextscanposeparticularchallengesbecausestudentsareunawareofthedifferenttextualstructuresusedindifferentdisciplines(Gerstenetal.,2001).Thecharacteristicsofcomplextextsforbothgenres,asdefinedbyACTforitstestsandinstructionalmaterials,arepresentedintable2.

_______ Page 7

Table2: Descriptionsof“Complex”TextasPresentedontheACTTests

ComplexL iteraryNarratives(essays, short stories, novel s)

Complex Informational Passages

• Makegeneroususeofambiguouslanguageandliteracydevices

• Featurecomplexandsubtleinteractionsbetweencharacters

• Containchallengingcontext‐dependentvocabulary

• Containmessagesand/ormeaningsthatarenotexplicitbutareembeddedinthepassage

• Includesizableamountsofdata

• Presentdifficultconceptsthatareembedded(i.e.,notexplicit)intext

• Usedemandingwordsandphraseswhosemeaningmustbedeterminedfromcontext

• Includeintricateexplanationsofprocessesorevents

AdaptedfromACT.(2006).ReadingBetweentheLines:WhattheACTRevealsAboutCollegeReadinessinReading.IowaCity,IA:Author.Together,informationintables1and2demonstratestherealitiesofthekindsoftextsandtasksthatshouldpreparestudentsforentry‐levelcollegecoursework,jobtrainingprograms,andthemilitary.Mostadultscanidentifywiththeconceptof“complextexts”byrememberingsomecollegeorgraduateschooltextbook,ascholarlyarticle,ahighlytheoreticalessay,therecipeforanelaboratedessert,ormaybetheinstructionsforinstallingone’sowncomputer.

Outcomesof LowLiteracyforStudentsinSecondarySchoolsIn2009,NAEPreadingwasadministeredto160,000studentsingrade8butnotingrade12.Nationally,therewasasmallimprovementinscoressince2007.Scoresinninestatesandinsomelargeurbandistrictswentup,andnostate’sscoresdeclined.Stillthedatashowedthatracialandethnicgapsthathaveexistedforyearspersist.Furthermore,only3percentofthegrade8studentsdemonstratedreadingattheAdvancedlevel;thatis,theywereabletoperformthetaskspresentedinthefirstcolumnintable1.TheoutcomeforstudentslikethosewhoscorewellonNAEPisusuallysuccessinhighschoolandinpostsecondarypursuits,butthosescoringatBasicorbelowmayfindthemselvesscramblingtokeepupintheircoursesorfallingfurtherandfurtherbehind.Itistruethatmanystudentswhoread2to4yearsbelowgradelevelonstatereadingtestsoftenreceivesupplementalreadinginstruction,butresearchhasshownlittleimpactfromevenfull‐year,intensiveprograms(Kempleetal.,2008;Corrinetal.,2008;James‐Burdumyetal.,2009).

_______ Page 8

Thenegativeoutcomesofadolescents’lowliteracycontinuelongafterhighschool,nomatterwhethertheyhaveactuallyacquiredahighschooldiplomaornot.Asyoungadultsseekingentryintotheworkforceormilitary,theyconfronttrainingprogramsthatassumeproficientliteracy(andoftennumeracy)skills.DatafromtheNationalAssessmentofAdultLiteracy(NAAL)(Kutneretal.,2007),whichwasadministeredin2003,supportthelinksamongliteracylevels,employment,andincome.Individualswithhigherlevelsofliteracyweremorelikelytobeemployedinfull‐timepositionsandearlyhigherwagesandwerealsolesslikelytohavereceivedpublicassistanceduringtheiradulthood.Individualswithhigherlevelsofliteracyalsoweremorelikelytoreportthattheyobtainedinformationaboutcurrentevents,publicaffairs,andgovernmentbyreading,thattheyvotedinelections,and(notsurprisingly)thattheyreadtotheirchildren.Themostrecentdataonhighschooldropoutratesisfortheclassof2007(DiplomasCount,2010).Only68.8percentoftheclassof2007graduated,withanaverageofonly60percentgraduatinginlargeurbanareas.Ofthe11,000U.S.schooldistricts,25percentaccountforthemajorityofthedropouts.Dropoutsdonotusuallymentionliteracyskillsastheirmotivationforleavinghighschool,buttheirmajorreasonsallsuggestliteracy‐relatedissues.Arecentstudyfoundthatonly35percentofdropoutsreportedleavingschoolbecausetheywerefailing,asopposedto47percentwhoclaimedthatuninterestingclassesweretheirmainreasonforleaving(Bridgelandetal.,2006).Theliteratureondropoutsoftenusestheterm“pushedout”forstudentswholeaveearly,sometimeswithinsightofgraduationday,perhapsbecausetheycannotkeepupbutmorelikelybecausetheyareboredorfindschoolirrelevant(Achieve,Inc.,andAmericanDiplomaProject,2004;Bridgelandetal.,2006).Hereagain,itisnotmuchofastretchtothinkthatdecisionstoleavebeforeobtainingadiplomamaybeinfluencedorexacerbatedbyreadingissues.Furthermore,theAmericanDiplomaProject(Achieve,Inc.,andAmericanDiplomaProject,2004)foundthatevenwhenstudentsgraduatefromhighschoolandgoontocollege,theyfrequentlyneedsomesortofremedialhelptogetthroughentry‐levelcourses.Employersofhighschoolgraduatesalsooftenreportthatnewhiresarenotpreparedforentry‐leveljobtrainingbecausetheylackbasicliteracyandmathematicsskills,andmostworkersquestionthepreparationtheirhighschoolshaveprovidedtothem.Toalargeextent,theseperceptionshavenotbeenquantified,buttheycorroborateACT’scontentionthatevenforhighschoolgraduates,literacylevelsareinadequateforpostsecondarypursuits.Arecentrevisionofadecade‐oldreport(Carnevaleetal.,2010)providesthenumericaldataneededtoillustratetheseissues.Thereportreviewswhatisknownaboutcurrentrelationshipsbetweeneducationlevelandjobrequirementsandforecaststheserelationshipsto2018.Theresearchers’focusispostsecondaryeducationingeneral,bothcollegeattendanceandjobtrainingprograms,andtheyareveryclearinstatingthat“dropouts,highschoolgraduates,andpeoplewithsomecollegebutnodegreeare

_______ Page 9

onthedownescalatorofsocialmobility,fallingoutofthemiddle‐incomeclassandintothelowerthreedecilesoffamilyincome”(p.3).Thereportpointsoutthat,onaverage,workerswithhigherlevelsofeducationreceivehighersalariesandsuggeststhatinthenearfuture,onlyblue‐collarandfoodandpersonalservicejobswillbeopentodropoutsandthosewithonlyahighschooldiploma.Thereportauthorsremindtheiraudiencethatpostsecondaryeducationisthe“bestumbrellainarecession”(p.5)andcautionthattheincreasingdependenceontechnologywillonlyincreasetheimportanceofcollegeorcareertrainingafterhighschool.Thereportoffersnodirectlinksbetweenitsdataandforecastsandtheadolescentliteracycrisis,buttherelationshipsareobvious.

P lanningtoMeettheAdolescentLiteracyCris isRecognizingtheneedtoimprovethequalityofliteracyinstructionfrompreschooltograde12,manystateanddistrictleadershavetakendirectionfromAchieve,Inc.,theNationalGovernorsAssociation(2005),andothers(Joftus,2002;Martinez,2005;TogneriandAnderson,2003)todeveloplocalframeworkstoguideliteracyinstructionacrossthegrades.AsstatesbegintointroducetheCommonCoreStateStandards(CCSS),manyexistingplanswillberevisitedandrevised.TherevisionprocesscanbeveryproductivebecauseitwillmotivatestatesanddistrictstothinkseriouslyaboutadolescentliteracyinlightoftheCCSSfocusoncollegeandcareerreadiness.Somesuggestedstepsinthisprocessarepresentedintable3anddetailednext.

Table3: QuestionstoAskAboutData

QuestionstoGuideAnalysi sofData QuestionstheAnalysi sWil l Answer

Whatdifferencesareshownintheachievementofdifferentgroups,whenanalyzedaccordingtoracial/ethnicandsocioeconomicstatusandothervariables?

Aretheresignificantgapsinachievementthatmustbeaddressed?Whatcharacterizesthesedifferences?

Inwhatschools,districts,orareasdostudentsseemtobedoingwellonthestatereadingtests?

Wherearethedifferentialsinachievement?

Whatarethecharacteristicsofteachersindistrictsorschoolsthatseemtobedoingbetterthanothersinclosingachievementgapsforadolescents?

Arethereteachercharacteristicsthatseemmostcloselyassociatedwithstudentsuccessasreaders?Doteachers’yearsofexperienceoreducationallevelseemtoberelatedtostudentachievement?

Whatsupportandtrainingisofferedtoteachersinareasthatseemtobedoingbetterthanothersinmeetingtheneedsofstrugglingadolescentreaders?

Whatpracticesareinplaceinsiteswherestudents’needsseemtobemeteffectively?Doteachersintheseschoolstakeadvantageofmoreprofessionaldevelopment?DotheyhaveCommonPlanningtime?Dotheschoolshavealiteracyleadershipteamthatactivelysupportsteachers’work?

_______ Page 10

QuestionstoGuideAnalysi sofData QuestionstheAnalysi sWil l Answer

Whatinterventions,ifany,areusedintheareasthatseemtobedoingbetterthanothersinmeetingtheneedsofstrugglingadolescentreaders?

Whichinterventionprogramsand/orproceduresseemtobemosteffective?

Whatcanbegeneralizedfromsiteswherelocaleffortsseemmostsuccessfulatmeetingtheneedsofstrugglingadolescentreaders?Aretheredifferencesinteachers,students,orproceduresthatmayaccountfordifferences?

Aretherelessonstobelearnedfromthesesites?Canproceduresbetransportedelsewhere?

EveninstatesanddistrictsthathavespenttimeplanningforK–12literacyinstruction,theexistingplansmaynotbethebestplacetostartneweffortstothinkaboutadolescentliteracy.Itmightbemoreinformativetoconductatwo‐partreviewthataskstoughquestionsaboutstudenttestdataandabouttheinstrumentsthatyieldedthedata.Table4presentssomesamplequestions.Startingwithdataisperhapsthemostefficientfirststep.Miskelandhiscolleagues(2003;MiskelandSong,2004)foundthatthepowertoshapereformeffortsinearlyreadingresidedwiththeindividualswhobestunderstoodtherelevantdata,forexample,therelationshipbetweenlowscoresonphonicsmeasuresandsubsequentdifficultiesincomprehension.Theirobservationgeneralizeswellforplanningforadolescentlearners.Similarpowercanresidewiththosewhounderstanddatafromsecondarystudents’readingtests.

Table4: SuggestedStepsin theProcessofPlanningNewComprehensiveLiteracyPlans

Step inthePlanningProcess PurposeoftheStep

1.Examineexistingtestdataandtheteststhatstudentshavetaken

Understandatacontentlevelwhattestscoresmeanintermsofthetasksstudentshavebeenaskedtoperform,thecognitivedemandofthetasks,andthecomplexityofthetextsthattestshaveincluded

2.Examinedataforindicatorsthatstudentsmaybeatriskfordroppingout

Becomevigilantasearlyaspossibletoidentifystudentswhoneedextrasupportandinstructiontoforestalltheirdroppingoutofhighschool

3.Createownershipoftheplanningprocessandtheplantodevelopacadreofindividualswhocantranslatetheplandownwardtolocaladministratorsandteachers

Createaplanthatreflectslocalneeds,aswellasresearchevidenceandbestpractice,andensurethattheplanwillbeexplainedaccuratelyandenthusiasticallytoeducatorsnotinvolvedintheplanningprocess

4.TakeadvantageofadoptionoftheCommonCoreStateStandardsandinterestininstructiontoemphasizetheimportanceofteachingliteracyinthecontentareas

Demonstratetocontent‐areateacherstherealimportanceoftheirlearningtointegratediscipline‐specificliteracyinstructionintotheirteaching

5.Provideliteracyinterventionsforstudentswhoneedhelpfillingingapsintheirliteracyskills

Providethesupportandremediationneededbystudentswhoselowliteracyskillsinhibittheirabilitiestosucceedincontent‐areacoursework

_______ Page 11

Withoutdippingdowntotheindividualclassroomlevel,theinterrogationofthedataisasearchfor“valueadded,”forthoseplacesandsituationsthatseemtobedoingthebestjobteachingstudentstoreadandhelpingthemmaintainandapplytheirskillsinincreasinglysophisticatedways.Becausethesearchlooksatdatainaggregateandthendisaggregatedbygroupandsituation,itcanhelplocateschoolsanddistrictsthatarebeatingtheodds,fromwhichbestpracticescanbegeneralized(Langer,1999;Uzzelletal.,2010).Inaddition,reviewingtheactualstatetestsfurthergroundsdiscussionsaboutdatainthetextsthatstudentsreadandthetasksthattheyperformedtoachievetheirtestscores.Thereviewmightshowthatthetests,eventhoughalignedtothestatestandards,containshort,low‐leveltextsandaskforshallowapplicationofalimitedrangeofreadingskillsthroughlow‐levelmultiplechoiceandshort‐answerquestions.Thisinformationcouldsuggestthatteachers,guidedbythetest’srequirements,limittheopportunitiesthatstudentshavetothoughtfullyapplysophisticatedreadingskills.Forexample,areviewconductedbyAchieve(2004)foundthat,withafewexceptions,mostofthegrade10andgrade11state‐mandatedhighschoolexitexamstargetedtheapplicationofskillsalignedtoexpectationsatagrade8level.Answerstothisinterrogationofstudentdatamightshowthatcurrentapproachestoliteracyinstructionseemtoworkbetterforsomestudentsthanforothers,orinonlysomegrades,orinsomepartsofastate,orinsomekindsofschools—thatis,inwhattheLearningFirstAlliancecalled“islandsofexcellence”(TogneriandAnderson,2003).Whateverstorythedatatell,itwillbeclearthatnooneapproachtoinstruction—ortochanginginstruction—willworkforall.Thisisthefallacyinthecommonapproachtodevelopingaframeworkforliteracyinstructionthatadheresstrictlytoalongitudinalordevelopmentalprogression.Suchplansmustbeflexible,responsivetostudents’differencesandneeds,anddifferentiatedacrossthegradesandcontentareas.TheinappropriatenessofthistypeofapproachwasproveninAlabama,wherethecarefullydevelopedkindergartentograde3plansfortheAlabamaReadingInitiative(ARI)wereextendedwithlittledifferentiationtouppergrades.Teachersinmiddleandhighschoolsrejectedtheone‐size‐fits‐allprofessionaldevelopmentandcollaborativelytailoredARIprocedurestofittheirneeds(SalingerandBacevich,2004).Anotherdatasourcemayseemsomewhatunexpected:students’attendancerecords.Frequentabsenteeism(morethan20percentoftheschoolyear)hasbeenidentifiedasoneoftheriskfactorsassociatedwithstudents’likelihoodofleavinghighschoolbeforegraduation(MacIverandMacIver,2009;AllensworthandEaston,2005).Absenteeismcanhaveaninsidiouseffectonstudents’learning.Accessingbackgroundknowledgeisanessentialreadingstrategy,onethatisfrequentlytaughtaspartofreadinginterventionprograms(Shanahan,2005).Butfrequentabsenteeismequatestoincreasinglylargegapsintheknowledgebasestudentsneedforsuccessinalltheiracademicwork.Thissuggeststhatattemptstoaddresstheneedsofstrugglingreadersshouldincludeuseofstudymaterialthathelpsstudentsnotonlytopracticeemergingskillsbutalsotofillingapsinwhattheyknow.

_______ Page 12

Thesecondstepintheplanningprocessistocreategenuineownershipoftheliteracyplanamongliteracyeducatorsfromaroundthestate.Effortstocreateownershipbeginwiththeselectionofparticipantsintherevisingorplanningprocess.Takingthetimetoidentifyandenlistthehelpoflocalacademicsandeducatorswithexpertiseinadolescentliteracycanbevaluableformanyreasons,buttworeasonsstandout:(1)recognizingthatexpertiseexistslocallyand(2)acknowledgingthattheneedsanduniqueconcernsofsecondaryteachersandlearnerswillbeincorporatedintotheplanningprocess.Includingsecondaryeducatorscanbuildgrassrootssupportandunderstandingastheyserveascommunicatorsofthestateintent.Theseparticipantsintheplanningprocess,farmorethananynationalconsultants,willhelptranslatethestateframeworkandcommunicateitscontenttoothersecondaryeducators.Theycanbetheoneswhostartprofessionalnetworksthatcandeepenunderstandingandfosterengagementamongthedistrictandschoolstaffwhowillhavetoimplementtheplan.Coburn(2001)andCoburnandRussell(2008)havestudiedwhattheycall“collectivesensemaking”asnewreadinginitiativesareintroducedintoschoolsystems.Theymaintainthatchangehappensonlywhenteachers“co‐construct”understandingofthemessagesinherentinnewpoliciesandprocedures.Theideal,ofcourse,isthattheco‐constructedmeaningaccuratelyreflectstheintendedliteracyplan,butachievingthisidealisoftenchallenging.Teachersneedtoseetheconnectionsamongtheirownpracticeandinstructionalsettingandtheperspectivesofandproceduresinthenewplan.Unlesstheseconnectionsmakesenseandtherequestedinstructionalchangesseemvaluable,teacherswillseethenewplaninthesamewayCoburn’ssubjectssawnewreadingstandards—“thesamestuff”(Coburn,2001,p.158).Manystateanddistrictliteracyplanshavetriedtoencouragesecondarycontent‐areateacherstointegrateliteracyinstructionintotheirteaching.Althoughthisapproachhasgainedtractioninsomeareas,manyteacherscontinuetomaintainthatthisisnottheirresponsibility.Thus,thethirdstepincreatinganewliteracyplanentailstwostrategies:(1)takingadvantageoftheadoptionoftheCommonCoreStateStandardsand(2)buildingoninterestinathree‐approachtoinstruction,whichwillbediscussedlater.Here,theprimarygoalistodrawattentiontocontent‐arealiteracy,theintegrationofinstructionintodiscipline‐specificreadingandwritingstrategies,andgreaterdemandsforreadingandwritingincontent‐areaclasses.HellerandGreenleaf(2007),drawingonalonghistoryofresearchandtheory,statethat“thevastmajorityofmiddleandhighschoolstudentsengageinverylittlesustainedreading,andwhentheydoitismainlyfrombrief,teacher‐createdhandoutsand,toalesserdegree,fromtextbooks....Most[teachers]devotelittleifanyclasstimetoshowingstudents,explicitly,whatitmeanstobeagoodreaderorwriterin[a]givensubjectarea”(p.16).Content‐areateachershavetraditionallyclungtotheirroleasexpertsandhaveresistedsuggestionsthattheymodifyinstructiontoplacetheirstudentsintheroleofnovicereadersofscience,history,Englishliterature,andevenmathematics.Yetintegratingdiscipline‐specificliteracystrategiesintocontentareaisthefoundationofsecondaryTier1instruction.

_______ Page 13

Opportunitiesforin‐personandonlineprofessionaldevelopmentincontent‐arealiteracyareabundant(see,forexample,http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/contlit.htm),buttheCommonCoreStateStandardscanserveastheincentivefornewinterestinthistopic.Indeed,thestructureoftheCCSSisaveritableblueprintforaprofessionaldevelopmentcurriculum.Standardsforkindergartentograde5integratetheteachingofcontentareasintothereadingandwritingstandards,butthoseforgrades6to12arefinelydifferentiated.Inadditiontoanchorstandardsforcollegeandcareerreadinessandstandardsforwriting,speaking,listening,andlanguageusage,theCCSSdetailwhatstudentsneedtoknowandtheskillstheyneedtoreadinformationaltextandliteratureandtoreadinhistory,socialstudies,science,andtechnicalsubjects.Theyemphasizethedifferencesinpresentationofinformationacrossdifferentdisciplines;lackofunderstandingofthesedifferenceshasbeenfoundtobealargedeterminantinstudents’readingdifficulties(Gerstenetal.,2001).Furthermore,theCCSSprovideclearmetricsfordeterminingtextcomplexityandreadabilityandformatchingreaderstotextstopromotenotjustengagementbutalsostudents’abilitytobuildonpreviousknowledge.Infartoomanycasesinthepast,standardsdocumentsprobablylanguishedonteachers’shelves,whiletheactualinstructionwasguidedbythereductionofthebreadthanddepthofthesestandardstothecontentofstatetests.ItistooearlytoknowwhetherthiswillbethefateoftheCommonCoreStateStandards,buttheopportunitiestheypresentforrethinkingadolescentliteracyinstructionarehuge.Thefinalstepintheplanningprocessisaddressingtheneedsofstudentswithsignificantliteracyweaknesses.Nomatterhoweffectivelyelementaryteachersteachreadingorcontent‐areateachersembedliteracyintotheirinstruction,somestudentswillneedmoreintenseinterventiontohelpthemovercomethechallengestheyface(Kamiletal.,2008).Acomprehensiveliteracyplanmustrequireinterventionsforstudentswhoneedthem,ideallyassoonastheirneedsareidentified.Ofcourse,thisdoesnotmeanthatinterventionsandsupportofferedtoolderstudentscannotbeeffective!Studentsinuppergradeshavehadmoretimetoreinforcetheirperceptionofthemselvesasweakreaders,moretimetobedisappointedintheirapplicationofinsufficientreadingstrategies,andmoretimetofallbehindinacquiringtheknowledgeneededforcontent‐arealearning.“Catching”studentsasearlyaspossibleinthesafetynetofinterventionsbenefitsthestudentsaswellasthesystemthatisworkingtomakethemcollegeandcareerready.Thecurrentinterestinanapproachtoinstruction,oftencategorizedunderResponsetoIntervention(RtI)(seewww.rti4success.org),suggestsaneffectiveapproachtoaddressingtheneedsofallstudents.Tieredinstructioniselegantinitssimplicitybutchallenginginitsimplementation,especiallyinsecondaryschools(Duffy,2007).Forthefirsttier,evidence‐basedinstructionisprovidedinallcontentareas.TheCCSSforgrades6to12aregroundedinresearchonthediscipline‐specificstrategiesneededto

_______ Page 14

readsuccessfullyineachcontentarea,aswellasonbestpracticesinadolescentliteracyinstruction.ProfessionaldevelopmentontheCCSSshouldstrengthenteachers’abilitytoprovidesoundTier1instructiontostudentswhoselowliteracyskillsputthemofftrackforcollegeandcareer.Tiers2and3provideincreasinglytargetedinstructiondesignedtoaddresssignificantliteracydeficiencies.ThemostcommonTier2services,whichareoftenofferedseveraltimesaweekforafullyear,arereadingprogramsdesignedforstudentswhoread2to4yearsbelowgradelevel.StudentswhobenefitfromTier2serviceshavemasteredbasicdecodingandlow‐levelcomprehensionskillsbutneedinstructionthatwillstrengthenandexpandtheirstrategiesforfiguringoutunfamiliarwordsandmakingsenseofcomplextexts.Tier3readingprogramsaredesignedforstudentswiththekindsofseverereadingdifficultiesthatarebestpinpointedbydiagnostictestsadministeredandinterpretedbyspecialists.ManyTier3programsbeginwiththefundamentalsofreadingtoensurethatstudentshavemasteredbasicdecodingandwordidentificationstrategies;theythenmoveontoaddressvocabularyandcomprehension.Tier3readingclassesareusuallysmallsothatteacherscandifferentiateinstructionandpracticetomeetstudents’individualneeds.

Therangeofthesereadinginterventionsishuge(Deshleretal.,2007;Shanahan,2005),asistheevidencebasethatsupportsthem(Torgesenetal.,2007).Tier2interventionsareforstudentswhoscoreapproximately2to4yearsbelowgradelevelonreadingtests.Theirbasicwordattackandsilentreadingfluencyskillsareusuallydeveloped,buttheywillbenefitfrominstructionthatwillincreasetheirabilitiestofigureoutunfamiliarortechnicalvocabulary,addtotheircomprehensionstrategies,andteachthemtochecktheirreadingformeaningandapply“fix‐up”strategiesifmeaningisfoundering.Tier3interventionsareforstudentswhoneedmorebasicinstruction,oftentosolidifyandstrengthenwordidentificationandsilentreadingfluencyskills.Althoughcommercialprogramsatbothlevelsoftenrecommendafullyearofintenseinstructionandextensiveprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers,Tier2programsareusuallydesignedtoaccommodatesomewhatlargerclassesandtoemphasizereadingincontentareasmorethanTier3programs.

ImplementinganyTier2andTier3interventionsposeschallengesforscheduling,teachertraining,andbudgetplanning,butthelong‐termbenefitsofovercomingthesechallengesincludeanincreasedlikelihoodthatstudentswillremaininschoolandacquirethelevelsofliteracyandacademicreadinesstheyneedforpostsecondaryeducation.

_______ Page 15

ConclusionEducatorsandpolicymakersrecognizethattoomanyadolescentslackthereadingstrategiesandskillsnecessarytodowellinmiddleandhighschoolacademicworkandtheirpoorscoresonstateaccountabilitytestsreflectbadlyontheirschoolsanddistricts.Therealoutcomesofpoorliteracyskillsmanifestthemselveswhenstudentstrytomaketheirwayinpostsecondarypursuits.Evenforthosewithahighschooldiploma,workplacerequirementswillcontinuetoriseandtheneedforadvancedliteracyskillswillaccelerate.Achievementgapsnotedwhileindividualsareinschoolwillbecome“employmentgaps”and“salarygaps,”asfewerandfeweropportunitiesareavailableforindividualswhocannotreadwellenoughforevenentry‐leveltraining.Students’annualyearlyprogress,whileimportant,isnotasimportantasstudents’abilitytosurviveintheworldtheyencounteroncetheyleaveschool.Therealitiesofcollegeandworkplacerequirementsshouldprovideeducatorsandpolicymakerswiththeincentivestheyneedtorethinktheircurrentliteracyplans.Astheydoso,theyoughtnottolosesightoftheimportanceofbuildingstrongfoundationalskillsintheearlygrades,buttheyalsoneedtorecognizetwootherimportantfactors.First,thecontinuumofmanystudents’readingdevelopmentdoesnotkeeppacewiththechallengespresentedbytheirreadingtextsandtasks.Thetransitionfromearlygradestograde4representsamajorshiftintheliteracyexpectationsplacedonstudents,andtheiracquisitionoffoundationalskillsmaynothavepreparedthemwellenoughtomakethistransitionsuccessfully.Also,thetransitiontograde9presentsahostofnewacademicandsocialchallenges,asthetextsandtasksstudentsencounterbecomeevenmoresophisticatedandtheirabilitytoquicklyformrelationshipswithnewteachersandpeersbecomesincreasinglyimportant.Thesecondfactorforeducatorsandpolicymakerstoconsideristhatincreasedemphasisontheimportanceofcollegeandcareerreadinessisaccompaniedbytoolsthatcanhelpdistrictsandschoolsdevelopforward‐lookingliteracyplans—onesthatacknowledgethekindsofreadingstudentsinmiddleandhighschoolsneedtodotobecompetitiveintheirpostsecondaryeducationandemploymentpursuits.Thetoolsexisttohelpdefinetheliteracytasksstudentsmustacquire.TheCommonCoreStateStandards,whichdifferentiateliteracytasksbycontent,andthetieredstructureproposedasawaytoprovidequalityinstructiontoallstudentsandappropriatesafetynetsforthosewhostruggle,alsoholdpromise.Literacyplansthatlookbeyondtherequirementsofgrade12andaddresswhatstudentsneedtoknowandbeabletodoaftertheyleaveschoolareneedednowmorethaneverbecauseitispreparationforthisphaseofstudents’livesthatshouldbetherealfocusofoureducationalefforts.

_______ Page 16

ReferencesACT.(2008).TheForgottenMiddle:EnsuringThatAllStudentsAreonTargetforCollegeandCareerReadinessBeforeHighSchool.IowaCity,IA:Author.Availablefromhttp://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ForgottenMiddle.pdf.ACT.(2009).TheConditionofCollegeReadiness2009.RetrievedJune30,2010,fromhttp://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/TheConditionofCollegeReadiness.pdf.ACT.(2006).ReadingBetweentheLines:WhattheACTRevealsAboutCollegeReadinessinReading.IowaCity,IA:Author.Achieve,Inc.(2004).DoGraduateTestsMeasureUp?ACloserLookatStateHighSchoolExitExams.Washington,DC:Author.

Achieve,Inc.,andtheAmericanDiplomaProject.(2004).ReadyorNot:CreatingaHighSchoolDiplomaThatCounts.Washington,DC:Author.Alexander,P.(2005).ThePathtoCompetence:ALifespanDevelopmentalPerspectiveonReading.JournalofLiteracyResearch,37(4):413–436.Allensworth,E.M.,andEaston,J.Q.(2005).TheOn‐TrackIndicatorasaPredictorofHighSchoolGraduation.Chicago:ConsortiumonChicagoSchoolResearch.Alvermann,D.E.(2001).EffectiveLiteracyInstructionforAdolescents.ExecutivesummaryandpapercommissionedbytheNationalReadingConference.Chicago:NationalReadingConference.Bridgeland,J.M.,Dilulio,J.J.Jr.,andMorrison,K.B.(2006).TheSilentEpidemic:PerspectivesofHighSchoolDropouts.Washington,DC:CivicEnterprisesLLC.Buly,M.R.,andValencia,S.W.(2002).BelowtheBar:ProfilesofStudentsWhoFailStateReadingAssessments.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,24(3):219–239.Bus,A.,andNeuman,S.(Eds.).(2009).MultimediaandLiteracyDevelopment.NewYork:Routledge,Taylor,andFrancis.Carnavale,A.P.,Smith,N.,andStrohl,J.(2010).HelpWanted:ProjectionsofJobsandEducationRequirementsThrough2018.Washington,DC:GeorgetownUniversityCenteronEducationandtheWorkforce.RetrievedJune28,2010,fromhttp://cew/georgetown.edu/jobs2018.CenteronEducationPolicy.(2010).BetterFederalPoliciesLeadingtoBetterSchools.Washington,DC:Author.Chall,J.S.(1983).StagesofReadingDevelopment.NewYork:McGraw‐Hill.

_______ Page 17

Chall,J.S.,Jacobs,V.A.,andBaldwin,L.E.(1990).TheReadingCrisis:WhyPoorChildrenFallBehind.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Chall,J.S.,andJacobs,V.A.(2003,spring).TheClassicStudyonPoorChildren’sFourth‐GradeSlump.AmericanEducator.RetrievedSept.9,2010,fromhttp://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/spring2003/hirschsbclassic.cfm.Coburn,C.E.(2001).CollectiveSensemakingAboutReading:HowTeachersMediateReadingPolicyinTheirProfessionalCommunities.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,23(2):145–170.Coburn,C.E.,andRussell,J.L.(2008).DistrictPolicyandTeachers’SocialNetworks.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,30(3):203–235.Corrin,W.,Somers,M.‐A.,Kemple,J.J.,Nelson,E.,Sepanik,S.,Salinger,T.,andTanenbaum,C.(2008).TheEnhancedReadingOpportunitiesStudy:FindingsFromtheSecondYearofImplementation.(NCEE2009–4036).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance,InstituteofEducationSciences,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.CounciloftheGreatCitySchoolsandAmericanInstitutesforResearch(inpreparation,due2011).UnderstandingStudentAchievementinUrbanSchoolDistricts:AnAnalysisofNAEP/TUDAResults,CurriculumAlignment,andSiteVisitFindings.Washington,DC:Author.Deshler,D.D.,Palinscar,A.S.,Biancarosa,G.,andNair,N.(2007).InformedChoicesforStrugglingReaders.Newark,DE:InternationalReadingAssociation.DiplomasCount.GraduationbytheNumbers:PuttingDatatoWorkforStudentSuccess.RetrievedJuly20,2010,fromhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34execsum.h29.html.Duffy,H.(2007).MeetingtheNeedsofSignificantlyStrugglingLearnersinHighSchool:ALookatApproachestoTieredIntervention.Washington,DC:NationalHighSchoolCenter.RetrievedJuly7,2010,fromhttp://www.rti4success.org/images/stories/high_school.pdf.Gersten,R.,Fuchs,L.S.,Williams,J.P.,andBaker,S.(2001).TeachingReadingComprehensionStrategiestoStudentsWithLearningDisabilities:AReviewoftheResearch.ReviewofEducationalResearch,71(2):279–320.Grossman,J.B.,andCooney,S.M.(2009).PavingtheWayforSuccessinHighSchoolandBeyond:TheImportanceofPreparingMiddleSchoolStudentsfortheTransitiontoNinthGrade.NewYork:Public/PrivateVentures.RetrievedMarch20,2010,fromhttps://www.ppv.org/ppv/publication.asp?section_id=24&search_id=&publication_id=269.Guthrie,J.T.(Ed.)(2008).EngagingAdolescentsinReading.ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.Guzzetti,B.,andGamboa,M.(2004).ZinesforSocialJustice:AdolescentGirlsWritingonTheirOwn.ReadingResearchQuarterly,39(4):408–436.

_______ Page 18

Hargood,M.C.(2007).LinkingPopularCulturetoLiteracyLearningandTeachingintheTwenty‐FirstCentury.InB.Guzzetti(Ed.),LiteracyfortheNewMillennium:AdolescentLiteracy(pp.223–238).Westport,CT:Praeger.Hart,B.,andRisley,T.R.(1995.)MeaningfulDifferencesintheEverydayExperienceofYoungAmericanChildren.Baltimore:BrookesPublishingCo.Heller,R.,andGreenleaf,C.L.(2007).LiteracyInstructionintheContentAreas:GettingtotheCoreofMiddleandHighSchoolImprovement.Washington,DC:AllianceforExcellentEducation.Jacobs,V.A.(2008).AdolescentLiteracy:PuttingtheCrisisinContext.HarvardEducationalReview,78(1):7–39.James‐Burdumy,S.,Mansfield,W.,Deke,J.,Carey,N.,Lugo‐Gil,J.,Hershey,A.,Douglas,A.,Gersten,R.,Newman‐Gonchar,R.,Dimino,J.,andFaddis,B.(2009).EffectivenessofSelectedSupplementalReadingComprehensionInterventions:ImpactsonaFirstCohortofFifth‐GradeStudents(NCEE2009–4032).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance,InstituteofEducationSciences,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.Joftus,S.(2002).EveryChildaGraduate:AFrameworkforanExcellentEducationforAllMiddleandHighSchoolStudents.Washington,DC:AllianceforExcellentEducation.Kamil,M.L.,Borman,G.D.,Dole,J.,Kral,C.C.,Salinger,T.,andTorgesen,J.(2008).ImprovingAdolescentLiteracy:EffectiveClassroomandInterventionPractices:APracticeGuide(NCEE2008–4027).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationEvaluationandRegionalAssistance,InstituteofEducationSciences,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.Kamil,M.(2010).AdolescentLiteracyandTextbooks:AnAnnotatedBibliography.NewYork:CarnegieCorporationofNewYork.Kemple,J.J.,Corrin,W.,Nelson,E.,Salinger,T.,Hermann,S.,andDrummond,K.(2008).EnhancedReadingOpportunityStudy:EarlyImpactandImplementationFindings(NCEE2008–4015).U.S.DepartmentofEducation,InstituteofEducationSciences.Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.Kutner,M.,Greenberg,E.,Jin,Y.,Boyle,B.,Hsu,Y.,andDunleavy,E.(2007).LiteracyinEverydayLife:ResultsFromthe2003NationalAssessmentofAdultLiteracy(NCES2007–480).U.S.DepartmentofEducation.Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.Langer,J.A.(1999).BeatingtheOdds:TeachingMiddleandHighSchoolStudentstoReadandWriteWell(2nded.).Report#12014.Albany,NY:NationalResearchCenteronEnglishLearningandAchievement.Availablefromhttp://cela.albany.edu/reports/langer/langerbeating12014.pdf.Leach,J.M.,Scarborough,H.S.,andRescorla,L.(2003).Late‐EmergingReadingDifficulties.JournalofEducationalPsychology,95(2):211–225.RetrievedJune13,2010,fromhttp://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/research_digest/late_emerging_reading_disabilities.html.

_______ Page 19

Legters,N.E.,andKerr,K.(2001).EasingtheTransitiontoHighSchool:AnInvestigationofReformPracticestoPromoteNinthGradeSuccess.Baltimore:CenterfortheSocialOrganizationofSchools,JohnsHopkinsUniversity.Linn,R.L.(2006).ConflictingDemandsofNoChildLeftBehindandStateSystems:MixedMessagesAboutSchoolPerformance.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives,13(33).RetrievedApril14,2010,fromhttp://www.epaa.asu.edu.MacIver,M.A.,andMacIver,D.J.(2009).BeyondtheIndicators:AnIntegratedSchool‐LevelApproachtoDropoutPrevention.Arlington,VA:Mid‐AtlanticEquityCenter,GeorgeWashingtonUniversityCenterforEquityandExcellenceinEducation.RetrievedJuly1,2010,fromhttp://maec.ceee.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/Dropout%20report%208.11.09.pdf.Martinez,M.(2005).AdvancingHighSchoolReformintheStates:PoliciesandPrograms.Reston,VA:NationalAssociationofSecondarySchoolPrincipalsandtheKnowledgeFoundation.

McCombs,J.S.,Kirby,S.N.,Barney,H.,Darilek,H.,andMagee,S.J.(2005).AchievingStateandNationalLiteracyGoals:AnUphillRoad.SantaMonica,CA:RANDCorporation.Miskel,C.G.,Coggshall,J.G.,DeYoung,D.A.,Osguthorpe,R.D.,Shepley,T.V.,Song,M.,andYoung,T.V.(2003).ReadingPolicyintheStates:InterestsandProcesses.FinalreportfortheFieldInitiatedStudiesGrantPR/AwardNo.R305T990369,OfficeofEducationalResearchandImprovement,U.S.DepartmentofEducationandtheSpencerFoundationMajorResearchGrantsProgramAward#200000269.AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichigan.Miskel,C.,andSong,M.(2004).PassingReadingFirst:ProminenceandProcessesinanElitePolicyNetwork.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,26(2):89–109.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.(2009).TheNation’sReportCard:Reading2009(NCES2010–458).InstituteofEducationSciences,U.S.DepartmentofEducation,Washington,DC.RetrievedJuly6,2010,fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2010458.asp.NationalGovernorsAssociation(NGACenterforBestPractices).(2005).ReadingtoAchieve:AGovernor’sGuidetoAdolescentLiteracy.Washington,DC:Author.Paris,S.C.(2005).ReinterpretingtheDevelopmentofReadingSkills.ReadingResearchQuarterly,40(2):184–202.Salinger,T.andBacevich,A.(2006).SustainingaFocusonSecondaryReading:LessonsandRecommendationsfromtheAlabamaReadingInitiative(AReporttoCarnegieCorporationofNewYork).Washington,DC:AmericanInstitutesforResearch.Retrievablefromwww.air.org.Scammacca,N.,Roberts,G.,Vaughn,S.,Edmonds,M.,Wexler,J.,Reutebuch,C.K.,andTorgesen,J.K.(2007).InterventionsforAdolescentStrugglingReaders:AMeta‐AnalysisWithImplicationsforPractice.Portsmouth,NH:RMCResearchCorporation,CenteronInstruction.

_______ Page 20

Shanahan,C.(2005).AdolescentLiteracyInterventionPrograms:ChartandProgramReviewGuide.Naperville,IL:LearningPointAssociates.Short,D.K.,andFitzsimmons,S.(2007).DoubletheWork:ChallengesandSolutionstoAcquiringLanguageandAcademicLiteracyforAdolescentEnglishLanguageLearners.Washington,DC:AllianceforExcellentEducation.Swanson,H.L.,andHoskyn,M.(2001).InstructingAdolescentsWithLearningDisabilities:AComponentandCompositeAnalysis.LearningDisabilities:Research&Practice,16(2):109–119.Togneri,W.,andAnderson,S.E.(2003).BeyondIslandsofExcellence:WhatDistrictsCanDotoImproveInstructionandAchievementinAllSchools—ALeadershipBrief.Washington,DC:LearningFirstAlliance.Torgesen,J.K.,Houston,D.D.,Rissman,L.M.,Decker,S.M.,Roberts,G.,Wexler,J.,Francis,D.J.,Rivera,M.O.,andLesaux,N.(2007).AcademicLiteracyInstructionforAdolescents:AGuidanceDocumentFromtheCenteronInstruction.Portsmouth,NH:RMCResearchCorporation,CenteronInstruction.Uzzell,R.,Simon,C.,Horwitz,A.,Hyslop,A.,Lewis,S.,andCasserly,M.(2010).BeatingtheOdds:AnalysisofStudentPerformanceonStateAssessmentsandNAEP.Washington,DC:CounciloftheGreatCitySchools.Valencia,S.W.,andBuly,M.R.(2004).BehindTestScores:WhatStrugglingReadersReallyNeed.TheReadingTeacher,57:520–533.Yudowitch,S.,Henry,L.M.,andGuthrie,J.T.(2008).Self‐Efficacy:BuildingConfidentReaders.InJ.T.Guthrie(Ed.),EngagingAdolescentsinReading(pp.65–82).ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.