2010 Standards for Reading Professionals

2010 Standards for Reading Professionals International Reading Association Minneapolis, Minnesota May, 2009

Committee Members Representatives • Gail Keating – IRA • Rita Bean – University of Pittsburgh • Jack Cassidy – Texas A & M, Corpus Christi • Vicki Risko – Vanderbilt University • Deb Miller – McDaniel College • Barbara Laster – Towson University • Dorothy Strickland – Rutgers University

Goals • Share the process of standards development: where we are • Discuss • proposed roles in Standards 2010 • Discuss highlights of the standards (proposed changes) • Opportunity for Question and Answer and feedback from you

Procedures for Standards 2010 Development • Large committee which has met on three occasions to discuss general issues relative to standards (any additional, role changes) • Smaller “Standards” committees to discuss and modify elements and indicators within standard led by lead writers • Several meetings of lead writers • Conference call meetings of sub-committee members to rewrite and revise each of the standards

Developed a First Draft of Standards 2010 • Introductory section • Assumptions about the Standard • Elements and Indicators (the matrix) • Resources • Some major changes • Addition to elementary teacher, added secondary content or classroom teacher, and secondary reading teacher • Moved administrator role – no longer one of the roles across standards

Announcement of Draft 2010 Standards • Draft standards were posted to IRA website for review November 1-December 31, 2008 • Notices were printed in the October/November and the December/January issues of Reading Today • Announcements were issued through listservs: • National Reading Conference (NRC) • American Education Research Association (AERA) • American Reading Forum (ARF) • Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR)

Dissemination of Draft 2010 Standards • Education related conferences • Education related program and organizations • State/government related agencies • NCATE related • IRA Special Interest Groups • Other IRA Related Groups • Other education associations • Targeted Individuals

Responses to Standards Survey During the November 1- December 31 period, the draft Standards received thousands of visits to our web pages. Number of Reponses to Standards Survey: 444 visits to the survey 119 completed surveys 38 partially completed survey responses 157 total responses to the survey

Who Responded to the Standards Survey?

Responses to Draft 1: Roles • Need to highlight literacy coach as well as reading specialist • Questions about middle school/secondary reading teacher (too similar to RS)? • Issues about qualifications (more courses; more years of experience) • Why move administrator?

Responses to Draft 1: Standards • Too many indicators • Issues about content tended to be idiosyncratic • Too much repetition • Too much jargon (co-construct) • In general feedback was positive!

Meeting of Committee in Phoenix: Major Decisions • Use reading specialist/literacy coach as title for those roles • Keep secondary classroom teacher (content teacher) • Revisit secondary reading teacher • Worked in roles committees because we decided on a change in formatting

From Matrix format to……

Each role/and all standards for that role (Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach below)

Comments about the New and Different Format • Can include all roles, including educational support personnel, administrator. Users can decide which roles are important to them. • Not as much concern about cumulative nature of indicators (one built on another); rather what is it that a specific role requires? • We might include material in the old format in the back of the document for those who want to look across roles.

Current Activities • Working within a standard to see whether the sequencing of indicators makes sense • Trying to collapse “indicators” to reduce prescriptive nature (and too many measurement item) • Giving Standards Committees opportunity to see if what Roles Committees did makes sense

Future Activities (after IRA) • Gail Keating, Cathy Roller, and Rita Bean will review all materials submitted and then identify any issues or inconsistencies; develop introductory and other materials (pages that elaborate on some issues) , e.g., materials that elaborate on a specific role. • Submit revised material to full Committee for responses (conference calls/email) • Prepare these materials for website

Some Unfinished Business • Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach • All reading specialists should have coaching experiences (although they will be “introductory” or beginning experiences) • Coaching experiences should be thought of as “in addition” to, and those institutions that can/want to include coaching can do so. Coaching experiences will be “shaded” or “highlighted.” • Coaching should be a separate column – doesn’t seem to be the direction we are going

More Unfinished Business • Secondary Reading Teacher • How can we distinguish between this role and the role of the reading specialist? • Others?

Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge Candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction

Assumptions of Standard 1 The major assumptions are: Knowledge represents the currently shared content of the reading field; it is subject to change over time. Based on several decades of cognitive science research on human learning, knowledge is domain specific and contextualized. Social experience and context play a role in the construction and development of knowledge. Knowledge in the reading field includes archival research-based knowledge and practical knowledge that reflects the wisdom of practice. Members of a professional community develop the capacity to learn from experience and contemplate their own practice in systematic ways.

Elements of Standard 1 1.1 – Understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivation and socio-cultural foundations of reading and writing processes, components, and development. 1.2 – Understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and processes, components, and development, and in how online and offline reading interacts with them. 1.3 – Understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving students’ reading development and achievement.

Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge 2003 - Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction 2010 - Candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction.

2003 1.1 - Demonstrate knowledge of psychological, sociological, and linguistic instruction. 1.2 - Demonstrate knowledge of reading research and histories of reading. 1.3 - Demonstrate knowledge of language development and reading acquisition and the variations related to cultural and linguistic diversity. 1.4 - Demonstrate knowledge of the major components of reading (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and back ground knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies and motivation) and how they are integrated in fluent reading. 2010 1.1 – Understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivation and socio-cultural foundations of reading and writing processes, components, and development. 1.2 – Understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and processes, components, and development, and in how online and offline reading interacts with them. 1.3 – Understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving students’ reading development and achievement. Elements of Standards 1 A Comparison

Standard 2: Curriculum and Instruction Candidates use instructional approaches, materials, and an integrated, comprehensive, balanced curriculum to support student learning in reading and writing

Assumptions of Standard 2 The major assumptions are: Reading professionals use their foundational knowledge about literacy to envision and enact a balanced curriculum responsive to the needs of diverse learners. Reading professionals have a conceptual framework for literacy development to inform teaching practice and selection of materials. Reading professionals use evidence-based instructional practice that enables them to call upon and utilize a variety of instructional strategies for all aspects of a balanced and motivating reading and writing program. Reading professionals select a wide variety of online and offline materials to meet the needs of diverse students.

Elements of Standard 2 2.1 – Design and implement integrated, comprehensive, and balanced curriculum Based on students’ prior knowledge and world experience vs. what students need to know and be able to do (T) Collaborate with others (e.g., teachers, support personnel) to design, modify, and implement curriculum to meet needs of all students (T, M/HsT, RS) Analyze and critique curricula and materials

Elements of Standard 2, continued 2.2 – Use appropriate and varied approaches that develop word study and comprehension and reading-writing connections Analyze and critique to choose high quality 2.3 – Use a range of online and offline materials, including multimodal forms of communication

Standard 3: Assessment and Evaluation Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading and writing instruction.

Assumptions of Standard 3 The most fundamental goal of assessment and evaluation is to optimize student learning. Effective assessment practices inform instruction. Reading professionals appreciate the importance of assessment. Reading professionals understand and use a repertoire of assessment tools and practices to analyze growth and progress. Reading professional understand the strengths and limitations of high stakes assessments Reading professionals communicate data findings and implications to appropriate audiences and stakeholders.

Elements of Standard 3 • 3.1 – Demonstrate an understanding of assessments and their purposes, strengths, and limitations. • 3.2 – Selects, develops, administers, and interprets assessments as appropriate for the purpose and design of the instruments. • 3.3 – Uses assessment information to plan, to implement, and to evaluate instruction. • 3.4 – Communicates assessment results and implications to a variety of audiences.

Standard 4: Diversity Candidates create and engage their students in literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect and a valuing of differences in our society.

Assumptions of Standard 4 The major assumptions are: Diversity will be as much a reality in the future as it is of our lives today and as it has been in the lives of our predecessors. There is a tradition of “deficit” thinking and discourse in the context of diversity and schooling. As a society, we are not far removed from a time when “cultural deprivation” was an accepted term. Diversity is a potential source of strength of a society to be encouraged not discouraged. Diversity is the basis for adaptability to change and change is the only certainty in the future. Creating a curriculum that values diversity requires that teacher educators and teachers step outside their personal experience within a particular linguistic, ethnic, cultural group to experience others. The elements of diversity in a society cannot be isolated within that society and certainly not with an individual. The elements of diversity interact in the form of multiple identities that may move from the background into the foreground as a function of the context and the moment. There is a danger in over generalizing (stereotyping) characteristics to all members of diverse group. It is the responsibility of the teacher and schools to prepare learners not only in ways that value their diversity but to prepare these learners to engage in active citizenship to redress areas of inequity and privilege.

Elements of Standard 4 4.1 – Recognize, understand and value the forms of diversity that exist in society and their importance in learning to read and write. 4.2 – Use a literacy curriculum and engage in instructional practices that positively impact students’ knowledge, beliefs and engagement with the features of diversity. 4.3 – Develop and implement strategies to advocate for equity.

Standard 4 Committee Membership Assumptions Past, present, future; change is the only certainty Multiple identities in the foreground/background Not a deficit, but a value; also prepare learners to engage in active citizenship Step outside personal experience List of groupings (race, ethnicity, etc.)

Standard 4 4.1 Recognize the intersection of multiple identities and literacies. 4.2 Use literacy instruction to advance agency and equity. 4.3 Advocate for social justice.

Standard 5: Literate Environment Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments.

Assumptions of Standard 5 The major assumptions are: An effective literate environment offers both visible and “invisible” support (ie: psychological, social, emotional) to learners as they expand their literacies. The goal of the literate environment is to create a flexible border between the world outside the classroom and school to the world within (making the curriculum permeable to the social context). Learning should extend beyond the walls of the educational context in order to explore the potential for acts of literacy which affect the world outside. Learners require a literate environment which affords them the opportunity to engage in meaningful ways (including: time, accessibility, tools, choice, and support). Student learning is positively impacted by positive teacher dispositions such as high expectations, a carefully crafted physical environment, and a safe, low-risk social environment.

Elements of Standard 5 5.1 – Design the physical environment to optimize students’ use of online and offline resources in reading and writing instruction. 5.2 – Design the social environment to optimize students’ opportunities for learning to read and write. 5.3 – Use routines to support reading and writing instruction. 5.4 – Use a variety of classroom configurations to differentiate instruction.

Example Across Roles • Element 5.4 – Use a variety of classroom configurations to differentiate instruction • 5.4.1 – Education Support Personnel: Use a variety of instructional grouping options selected and supervised by the teacher. • 5.4.1 – PreK-Elementary Classroom teacher: Use evidence-based rationale to make and monitor flexible instructional grouping options for children.

Example across roles, continued • 5.4.1 – Middle/HS Content Teacher: Use evidence-based rationale to make and monitor flexible instructional grouping options for students. • 5.4.1 – Middle/HS Reading Teacher: Same as above • 5.4.1 – Reading Specialist/Coach: Identify the most effective grouping practices to meet the needs of all readers. • 5.4.1 – Teacher Educator: Prepare prospective and inservice teachers to align classroom organization and differentiated instruction.

Standard 5 Big Ideas for 2010 Purposeful design and implementation of an effective social and physical environment in the classroom Purposeful design and implementation routines and classroom configurations to support reading and writing instruction Integrated use of technology

Standard 5Changes since 2003 Specifically addressing the physical and social environments in separate elements Embedding the student interest/motivation piece into the new elements Increased focus on appropriate, integrated use of technology to connect students to additional learning opportunities

Standard 5 We’re Still Puzzled By How to make this standard manageable when it is the one that “puts it all together” in a classroom that works for learners How to keep the motivation/engagement piece evident

Standard 5 We’re Pleased That We’ve narrowed it to 4 elements and fewer indicators under each one without losing the overall intent The standard now gives a clearer picture of what a “literate environment” should look like In the role description classroom teachers are expected to collaborate with other professionals to improve instruction

Standard 6: Learning and Leadership Candidates view professional learning and leadership as a career-long effort and responsibility

Key Assumptions and Issues of Standard 6 – in a nutshell Some Key Assumptions Pursuit of lifelong learning Participation in ongoing inquiry Reflective Some Key Issues Recognition of ALL staff as participants in leadership roles with shared responsibility Multifaceted and changing role of the reading specialist/coach Degree of specificity regarding indicators

Elements of Standard 6 6.1 – Demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, effective professional development, and importance of conditions in school culture conducive to professional learning. 6.2 – Display positive dispositions related to one’s own reading and writing and the teaching of reading and writing in working with students, parents, colleagues, and the community. 6.3 – Pursue the development of individual professional knowledge and behaviors through goal setting and reflective practice. 6.4 – Initiate, design, participation, implement and evaluate effective and differentiated professional development programs to improve instructional practices and student learning 6.5 – Understand the ways in which local, state, and national policy decisions influence their instruction and how they can impact policy and advocate on behalf of students and the community.

Standard 6 – ElementsContrasting 2003 with 2010 2003 Display dispositions related to reading and the teaching of reading. Continue to pursue the development of professional knowledge and dispositions. 2010 Demonstrate foundational knowledge of adult learning theories and related research about organizational change, effective professional development, and importance of conditions in school culture conducive to professional learning. Display positive dispositions related to one’s own reading and writing and the teaching of reading and writing in working with students, parents, colleagues, and the community.

Next Draft for Public Review • The next draft will be posted to IRA’s website in early fall 2009 • Standards for Reading Professionals 2010 will be published by fall 2010 • For information contact Gail Keating, IRA, Division of Research and Policy at gkeating@reading.org or 302-731-1600, extension 226

2010 Standards for Reading Professionals