Cultures of literacy: An investigation of essential factors in the implementation of the Common Core State Literacy Standards

Submission to the CARReader

September 16, 2016

Penelope L. Lisi, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Educational Leadership

Central Connecticut State University

and

Catherine Kurkjian, Ed.D.

Professor, Department of Literacy, Early Childhood and Elementary Education

Central Connecticut State University

1

Introduction

In 2005, the National Association for Secondary School Principals published a report (Creating a Culture of Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High School Principals) that describes the major deficit in the literacy achievement of United States’ secondary students. Direct literacy instruction that might address this glaring deficit ends, in most cases, at the third grade. Historically, the teaching of reading has been one of the most critical, and perhaps challenging responsibilities of educators in schools around the world. In the U.S. 30% of all students are not graduating from high school, and 75% of all students with literacy problems in the third grade will still experience literacy difficulties in the ninth grade.

Since 2010, a promising, though somewhat controversial educational reform initiative in the United States has been the development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the English Language Arts and in Mathematics, and other content areas (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). The common K-12 standards are intended to define knowledge and skills so that upon graduation students are college and career ready. The successful implementation of the CCSS necessitates the creation of cultures of literacy in schools in which all stakeholders, including teachers and leaders, are working together to improve the teaching of reading from PK-12 grades. Forty-two states have adopted the Common Core State Standards. Much direction for implementation of the CCSS in Connecticut is coming from the Connecticut State Department of Education (Pryor et al, 2012; Pryor, 2014). Most notable is encouragement for the creation and use of professional learning communities (PLCs) as a strategy to support implementation. The intention is that schools and districts will move towards establishing cultures of literacy.In this article, we provide a hitorical overview and examine the interface between federal policy and the development of the CCSS. We describe the results from Year 2 of a three-year study that is designed to ascertain perceptions of Connecticut teachers and administrators regarding the implementation of the CCSS. During Year 1 (the pilot year), we used a 48-item instrument adapted from the Common Core Feedback Loop to collect baseline data about respondents’ understanding of the literacy standards and perceptions of supports for implementation of the standards. In Year 2, we fine-tuned the survey instrument, based on responses during the pilot year, and disseminated the survey throughout the state of Connecticut. Of particular interest is how leaders are creating a culture for enhancement of literacy.

The primary goal of this research project is to enhance our knowledge of leadership practices in support of a culture for literacy in ways that address significant literacy achievement challenges. In particular, we are interested to learn how educators and educational leaders are addressing the reform initiative that requires the implementation of a new set of learning standards in schools across the nation. While educators appear to be committed to defining expectations of what students should know and be able to do (EPE Research Center, 2013), there appear to be varying reactions to the national standards that have been established, to supports that have been provided for teachers to learn to implement them in the classroom, and to assessment systems that measure the integration and impact of the standards on student learning (Gewertz, 2011).

Historical Background

This historical review traces trends and provides a context leading up to the birth of the CCSS initiative. Traditionally, a tension has existed between local governance and federal control of schools. While local governance is considered a constitutional right by virtue of the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, one can trace the increasing impact of federal policy on reading instruction and, in the case of the focus of this article, how it interfaces with the development of the CCSS.

The Education and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was the first legislation that provided monetary incentives to states to improve the academic achievement of low-income families and to redress educational inequality among “minorities”. The ESEA was an important component of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Compensatory programs such as Head Start and Title I (Chapter I) were intended to provide more and better educational services to move the poor out of poverty, to ensure equity in educational opportunities, and to safeguard compliance with civil rights policies. Over the next three decades these programs grew extensively and were increasingly funded and accompanied by a demand for increased measures of accountability. Policies moved from targeting categorical groups in order to close achievement gaps to impacting all students. Funding for these programs provided needed resources to enhance reading instruction for all students.

In the 1980s Title I programs came under fire as demonstrated by a review of test scores and an examination of its overall efficacy. Allington (1984) argued that policies constrained effective reading instruction. He suggested redesign in areas such as its delivery, curriculum, instructional time, instructional focus and student evaluation. He called for a focus on research-based reading instruction and admonished reading professionals for too little involvement in conducting systematic investigations. The revamping of Title I programs from pull out to push in programs provided an entry point for districts to use funding to benefit reading instruction for all students.

In this same era the whole language movement, a holistic learner-centered philosophy guiding literacy instruction, was at its peak. Pushback to this approach came in a variety of forms. There was a great deal of politicized debate focusing on whole language versus phonics instruction, referred to as the Reading Wars. The Center for the Study of Reading under the sponsorship of the National Academy of Reading published a report, Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson et al, 1983), which provided a thorough synthesis of existing research and implications for reading instruction. This report underlined the importance of teaching phonics and its inclusion into reading instruction in a balanced way that did not polarize or politicize the debate.

Congress provided a grant in 1989 to the Educational Testing Service to expand the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to compare results of student performance in reading and mathematics and writing across grade levels and states. At that point California’s state level curricular policies were holistic and this was a source of controversy. The NAEP Assessment of 1992 tested 4th and 8th graders and found that California scored at the bottom of the tested states in reading achievement. This provided fodder for the phonics proponents and helped to propel the accountability movement through development of yearly statewide standardized assessments and scientifically research-based instruction.

During this time legislated reading programs were in place. Shanahan (2011) described the programs and provided a timeframe of federal literacy and language programs impacting reading instruction from the 1960s-2009. Related to the standards movement was the National Voluntary English Language Arts Standards.

In 1992 The National Governors Association called for specific learning standards to be used to enforce accountability. The US Department of Education contracted with the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, and with two professional literacy organizations, the International Reading Association (IRA) (now International Literacy Association, ILA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). A great deal of controversy surrounded the development of these professional standards. The Department of Education argued that the resulting standards were too broad and did not define what learners should know and be able to do in various literacy domains across grade levels. Funding for the standards was pulled in 1994. However, ILA and NCTE still published these professionally developed voluntary standards, and they are currently being revamped.

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, The Improving America’s School Act (IASA) required states to adopt their own high standards for all students. For Title I schools there was an expectation of high quality teaching and professional development to ensure low achieving students in high poverty areas would meet challenging standards. Accountability was built in through the use of state developed standards and assessments for all children (Riley, 1995). Varying standards at different levels of difficulties across states made it difficult, however, to enforce accountability.

The No Child Left Behind legislation was enacted in 2002 to institute high stakes testing with incentives and sanctions for not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The AYP component of NCLB required that states use a single accountability measure to determine if individuals and subgroups of students were making adequate progress on state standards (Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, 2011). States were to hold districts and schools accountable for meeting AYP with the goal of 100% proficiency by 2014.

Additionally, NCLB embraced scientific research-based instruction based on the findings of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000). In 1997 the NRP was formed by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Department of Education. The panel established criteria by which to select scientifically worthy studies and identified topics with feedback from regional public hearings. Debate and controversy surrounded the National Reading Panels’ process as well as the determination of what counts as scientific research. The NRP Report has had a tremendous impact on what is considered its narrow focus on reading instruction in its identification of the five “pillars’ of reading instruction. Research-based practices were identified that provide benefits to learners in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, reading comprehension and professional development for teachers (NICHD (2000). Critiques of the National Reading Panel often center on what was ignored in their review. Allington (2005) identifies and cites research on the “other five pillars” of reading instruction that were neglected, and of the dismissal of quasi-experimental studies that were not easily codified, and as such may have been lost to history. In 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) required instruction based on the findings of the NRP. Shanahan (2011) notes that “the NCLB enactment mentions scientific based reading research more than 100 times” (p.155).

Criticism of the NCLB Act revolved around a range of issues including the AYP design in which the rigor of standards varied from state to state. Once again differing standards across state mitigated accountability efforts. Shanahan (2011) argues that states were not encouraged to generate competitive standards due to sanctions in place if they failed to meet them. Others argued that the goals of AYP were too stringent and unrealistic and would set up schools for failure (Center on Educational Policy, 2004, as cited in Editorial Projects Research Center, 2011; Cronin, 2004). Cost was another issue in the implementation of the law, and some contended that the federal government was not contributing its share to meet their mandate (Orfield et al., 2004 as cited in Editorial Projects Research Center, 2011). Other criticisms address the impact of high stakes testing and its relationship to teacher turnover (Ingersoll, Merrill & May, 2016), and the impact of test preparation on curriculum and student learning and engagement.

The CCSS emerged in response to standards developed in states that were deemed to be “lower and uneven …. coupled with even lower assessments in many states” (VanTassel, 2015, p.60). With the reauthorization of NCLB, The National Governors Association (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the development of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Four billion dollars provided by Congress as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), were used to fund Race To The Top (RTTT) grants (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

Competitive rounds of grants were issued to challenge states to adopt college- and career-ready standards for all students, develop assessments aligned with the CCSS, provide student data systems for accountability, and link teacher evaluation to student performance on standardized tests. Shanahan (2011) explains that since Title I funds have been broadly distributed and combined with general education money to support reading instruction for all students, districts are reliant on them to fund reading instruction for all students. Moreover, he indicates that under ESEA, originally designed to force compliance with civil rights laws, the federal government has the power to withhold funds for noncompliance to educational policies. In this way federal policies regarding literacy can be used to influence literacy education.

In December 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was passed, replacing the No Child Left Behind Act which takes effect in the 2017-2018 school year. With the passage of ESSA, the US Department of Education is now prohibited from attempting to, "influence, incentivize, or coerce State adoption of the Common Core State Standards as it relates to state control over standards and states rights to opt out of the Common Core (Section 8544), prohibition of federal mandates, direction or control to incentivize, mandate, coerce or promote the CCSS or any other standards (Section 8526A,) Prohibition of use of funds and endorsement of curriculum (Section 8527) ( as cited in Education and the Committee Workforce, Sept. 2016). It will be interesting to explore the extent of the adoption and use of the CCSS in light of ESSA legislation. While federal initiatives and policy related to the CCSS have been traditionally bipartisan, the CCSS has taken on political overtones with pushback from those on the right and left (Baker, 2014) making it unclear as to what impact a newly elected president will have on its implementation.

Conceptual Framework for the Study

Literacy instruction must not end when students enter middle school. However, creating cultures of literacy necessitates strong and effective leadership. This study is guided by the literature and research about leadership for school improvement, as well as effective instructional practice. The literature is clear about the need for effective leadership as an essential ingredient in educational reform (Blankstein, 2012; Creating a Culture of Literacy, 2005; Deal and Peterson, 2009; Fullan, 2007; Hoy and Miskel, 2008; Murphy, 2004; Reeves, 2004; Schmoker, 2006; Wagner, 2008; Wahlstrom, Seashore Louis, Leithwood, and Anderson, 2010; Zepeda, 2007).