Literacy Daily

News & Events
Struggling Readers
Just the Facts! Close Reading and Comprehension of Informational Text
Close Reading and Writing From Sources
Struggling Readers
Just the Facts! Close Reading and Comprehension of Informational Text
Close Reading and Writing From Sources
    • Administrator
    • Classroom Teacher
    • Job Functions
    • Librarian
    • Blog Posts
    • Teacher Preparation
    • Research
    • Leadership
    • Professional Development
    • Topics
    • ILA News
    • News & Events
    • Tutor
    • Teacher Educator
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Retiree
    • Reading Specialist
    • Literacy Education Student
    • Literacy Coach
    • Content Types

    Introducing Improved Access to ILA Online Journal Content

    By ILA Staff
     | Feb 16, 2017

    wileyhub021617Ease and efficiency—educators have time for nothing less. To help you get the information you need when you need it, ILA has streamlined access to its journal content.

    • A new user-friendly look: Designed to help subscribers access online journal content faster than ever before, the new ILA Journals Hub makes it easy to find the most cited, the most read, and recently published journal content.
    • Easily searchable: Searching for the material you want is easier than ever. Enter a topic or an author and search articles in one ILA journal or among all three: The Reading Teacher, Reading Research Quarterly, and Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy.
    • Access the same favorites: The free virtual issues and open source articles are now simpler to find and read in the Hub.

    Get more familiar with this improved access to your journal content with these detailed instructions.

    Ready to get started? If you already subscribe to a journal, access the Hub by signing in to your account on literacyworldwide.org, clicking My Account & Journals, and selecting a journal under My Journals. If you’d like to add a journal subscription to your ILA membership, please contact Customer Service.

    Let us know what you think about the new Hub! E-mail your feedback to customerservice@reading.org.

     

    Read More
    • Blog Posts
    • Corporate Sponsor
    • Job Functions
    • Administrator
    • Classroom Teacher
    • Teacher Preparation
    • Professional Development
    • School Policies
    • School Leadership
    • Administration
    • Topics
    • Literacy Leadership
    • News & Events
    • Volunteer
    • Tutor
    • Teacher Educator
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Retiree
    • Reading Specialist
    • Policymaker
    • Partner Organization
    • Other/Literacy Champion
    • Literacy Education Student
    • Literacy Coach
    • Librarian
    • Content Types

    Standards 2017: Foundational Knowledge

    By April Hall
     | Feb 14, 2017

     

    helen perkins headshot
    J. Helen Perkins

    A draft of ILA’s eagerly awaited Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 (Standards 2017) will be available for public comment from April 17 to May 8. In the weeks leading up to the public comment period, we’ll take a look at the significant changes proposed in Standards 2017, which will be submitted for Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) approval in fall 2017 and published in early 2018. Once approved by CAEP, ILA’s new set of seven standards will become the ruler by which preparation programs for literacy professionals, specifically reading/literacy specialists, are measured.

    Standard 1 in ILA’s Standards 2017 addresses “foundational knowledge,” or the role of theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading, writing, and communication in the preparation of literacy professionals. J. Helen Perkins, associate professor at the University of Memphis and lead writer on Standard 1, said her team didn’t approach the standard as an expansion from Standards 2010 but rather as a rewrite to include the latest research in the field. The Standard 1 writing team also included the following:

    • Anne McGill-Franzen, professor and director of the Reading Center, University of Tennessee
    • Jeanne Schumm, professor emerita, University of Miami
    • Vicky Zygouris-Coe, professor of Education, University of Central Florida

    “The Standard is much more rigorous, and there are high expectations that require a deeper understanding of literacy access and acquisition,” Perkins said.

    She noted that the writing team gave a lot of consideration to reciprocity, or the idea that when students improve in reading, other communications will improve in turn. Perkins emphasized that Standard 1 now requires literacy professionals to not only have the knowledge base but also be able to demonstrate that knowledge.

    Perkins shared that Standard 1 now has a focus on multimodal literacy, which wasn’t even addressed in Standards 2010. She noted, “Students are reading and writing in completely different ways now.”

    She said of the Standards 2017 drafting process that she enjoyed the collaborative work with the other writing teams and learned a lot within her own team. In two years of conference calls and virtual work sessions, the Standard 1 team compiled an extensive list of research sources. Significant effort went into examining that list and determining what was really relevant to foundational knowledge. “Whatever we were putting into Standard 1 was very clearly research-based,” Perkins said. “I think the product will be well worth the labor we put into this.”

    Peruse the entire Standards 2017 draft when it is posted for open public comment on April 17 and be sure to have your voice heard.

    April Hall is editor of Literacy Daily. A journalist for more than 20 years, she has specialized in education, writing and editing for newspapers, websites, and magazines.

     

    Read More
    • Blog Posts
    • Job Functions
    • Corporate Sponsor
    • Classroom Teacher
    • Administrator
    • Literacy Advocacy
    • Education Legislation
    • Policy & Advocacy
    • School Leadership
    • Administration
    • Topics
    • Literacy Leadership
    • News & Events
    • Volunteer
    • Tutor
    • Teacher Educator
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Retiree
    • Reading Specialist
    • Policymaker
    • Partner Organization
    • Other/Literacy Champion
    • Literacy Education Student
    • Literacy Coach
    • Librarian
    • Content Types

    Confirmation of DeVos Portends Education Policy Upheaval

    By Dan mangan
     | Feb 09, 2017

    DeVos_300One tiebreaking vote by the vice president.

    On that slender a margin, Betsy DeVos—the billionaire philanthropist, GOP mega-donor, and school choice advocate who has no direct experience in public schools—was confirmed as Secretary of Education following a 50-50 split vote in the U.S. Senate.

    High drama preceded the floor vote when two republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, broke ranks and declared they would not vote to confirm DeVos, citing high constituent opposition.

    Their announcement touched off a massive last-ditch effort to produce one more scale-tipping defection, but to no avail despite an historic overload of the congressional phone system. Not even an all-night rally organized by congressional democrats on the eve of the vote was able to break the stalemate.

    Relevant experience

    DeVos’s lack of public school experience cut both ways during the battle over her confirmation. Former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, who introduced her at the start of the Senate HELP Committee hearing, extolled it as an asset because “the nation needed a disruptor to fix its ailing schools.”

    Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) expanded upon this theme as the floor vote neared, noting that DeVos is an outsider, not just “another education bureaucrat who knows all the acronyms.” To him, what opponents of DeVos really want is “to keep power over public education right here inside the beltway.”

    Nevertheless, the limitations of such a credential became apparent during her hearing. DeVos stumbled when Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) asked if all schools receiving taxpayer funding should be required to meet the requirements of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), first replying that the matter was better left to the states, and then acknowledging that she may have confused the law.

    When asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) for her view on using tests to measure whether students are making progress, as opposed to focusing on whether students meet proficiency standards, DeVos suggested that advancements should be the measure, leading Franken to reply that growth is not proficiency and to express surprise that she didn’t seem to know the issue.

    Conflict of interest

    DeVos underwent an extensive review by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) for conflict of interest issues, an effort that delayed the final vote until the OGE report was available to each member of the senate committee. In the end she agreed to divest from 102 companies and investment funds.

    Committee democrats asked that the floor vote on DeVos be delayed to allow for additional inquiries on potential conflicts based on the OGE report, a request denied by the chair, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who noted that DeVos had already provided answers to 837 written questions from the senators.

    Ironically, those answers gave rise to a side controversy as some appeared to have been lifted from older documents prepared by staff in the Justice and Education departments.

    School choice and public education

    Central to DeVos’s perspective on improving education is the conviction that school choice, including charter, magnet, and private options, must be available to parents of children whose learning needs are not met by the local public school.

    “If confirmed, I will be a strong advocate for great public schools,” she explained in her opening statement to the committee, but added that if a school is troubled, unsafe, or not a good fit for a child, parents should have the right to “a high quality alternative.”

    Sen. Murray (D-WA) challenged DeVos on this point, asking if she would commit not “to privatize public schools or cut a single penny for public education.” The nominee countered that she would work to address the needs of all parents and students while empowering parents to make choices on behalf of their children. It was a pivotal exchange that marked a clear divide.

    Charter schools proved to be another flare-up issue. DeVos has successfully advocated for charter school options in her home state of Michigan. However, the performance of Michigan charter schools has been a matter of continuing controversy. Critics have zeroed in on the accountability of these institutions, which they claim is minimal at best.

    DeVos rejects any such characterization, calling it “false news.” She maintains that these schools remain accountable to their oversight bodies, and that 122 of these schools have been closed in Michigan since the state first authorized them.

    Civil rights groups, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association seized on DeVos’s school choice views to mount a major publicity effort to block her confirmation due to concerns that choice continues inequity between minority and white students. Meanwhile, 18 republican state governors circulated a letter supporting her for the same reason.

    The challenges ahead

    Since DeVos was first nominated, an intense debate has been ignited on education policy. A vision predicated on the strength of existing models is now confronted by one that draws its power from taking a different tack.

    The assumption that vital progress has been made and is best preserved by current approaches now faces the charge that those approaches have outlived their time and become obstacles to achieving the student learning breakthroughs most sought after.

    As if these deepening rifts were not daunting enough, the discourse needed to bridge them is vexed by presumptions of exclusive legitimacy and assertions of settled fact that all but preclude the finding of common ground. References to what is “mainstream” and what is “troubling” have become a reflexive frame. All is counterpoint, and the result is paralysis.

    Much of the current impasse centers on the respective roles of the federal and state governments. For many, Washington is the only real guardian and guarantor of equal educational opportunity. For others, Washington has become an overbearing national school board whose funding-tied regulatory reach too often puts undue burdens on local officials and classroom teachers.

    At this turning point, critical questions seek urgent resolution. What should be considered indispensable in public education, and what can fairly be put in play? Which existing regulatory mandates ought to be preserved, and where should new options be tried instead?  What is the appropriate educational use of taxpayer dollars? Right now a workable consensus appears almost out of reach.

    Amidst the ferment, literacy professionals continue to grapple day in and day out with instructional realities that lie beyond political paradigms and school system structures. To succeed in this time of upheaval, teachers and school administrators need to hold fast to research-informed approaches to literacy education. With that fealty, forward progress can always be made.

    dan-mangan

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

     
    Read More
    • Blog Posts
    • Job Functions
    • Administrator
    • Classroom Teacher
    • Corporate Sponsor
    • Teacher Preparation
    • Research
    • Professional Development
    • Teacher Evaluation
    • Administration
    • Topics
    • Literacy Leadership
    • News & Events
    • Volunteer
    • Tutor
    • Teacher Educator
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Retiree
    • Reading Specialist
    • Policymaker
    • Partner Organization
    • Other/Literacy Champion
    • Literacy Education Student
    • Literacy Coach
    • Librarian
    • Content Types

    A New Set of Standards for Professional Preparation

    By April Hall
     | Feb 07, 2017

    The International Literacy Association (ILA) has a track record of setting standards for the literacy field. Every five years, a committee of teacher educators is convened to revise professional preparation standards to stay current with the changing skills and support needed in the classroom. A new revision is underway, and Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 (Standards 2017) will be published January 2018.

    Rita  Beanphoto
    Rita Bean

    Standards 2017 establishes criteria for literacy professional preparation programs throughout the United States and will also be a resource for states, policymakers and those hiring literacy professionals. The Standards describe what candidates for the literacy profession should know and be able to do in professional settings. They are the result of a deliberative process that draws from professional expertise and research in the literacy field.

    Several key shifts have informed the revision process. First, the title is changed from Standards for Reading Professionals to Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals, reflecting the shift to incorporate all facets of literacy in ILA’s mission. Second, Standards 2017 delineates three roles of specialized literacy professionals: reading/literacy specialist, literacy coach, and literacy supervisor/coordinator. These changes were informed by research conducted in a U.S. study and reported in an ILA brief, The Multiple Roles of School-Based Specialized Literacy Professionals. Third, the committee is revising guidance for the roles of classroom teachers, principals, teacher educators, and literacy partners. Last, Standards 2017 includes a new standard for practicum experiences for the role of the reading/literacy specialist.

    diane kern headshot
    Diane Kern

    The proposed revisions to the Standards for the three roles of the specialized literacy professionals were first presented at the ILA 2016 Conference & Exhibits and posted on ILA’s website. April 17–May 8, the current draft will be available for public comment on the ILA website. Reviewers may offer feedback on standards for the specialized literacy professional roles and for three classroom teacher roles: preschool/primary, elementary/intermediate, and middle/high school.

    “The results of the working committee include a major shift for reading/literacy specialists,” said Rita Bean, committee co-chair and professor emeritus at University of Pittsburgh. “We believe the revised Standards will provide a more precise and comprehensive description of the roles of each of the specialized literacy professionals. As such, the Standards will be helpful not only to those preparing literacy professionals but also to personnel responsible for hiring them.” 

    “We’re preparing not only literacy specialists, but also expert literacy teachers who can take on a role of leadership,” said Diane Kern, committee co-chair and associate professor at the University of Rhode Island. 

    A revised Standards 2017 draft, incorporating feedback from the public comment period, will be presented at the ILA 2017 Conference & Exhibits in Orlando, FL, in July. Standards 2017 will then go to the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). Once approved, ILA’s new standards will support CAEP’s evaluation of educator preparation programs.

    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.

     

    Read More
    • Blog Posts
    • Librarian
    • Classroom Teacher
    • Job Functions
    • Administrator
    • Teacher Preparation
    • Professional Development
    • Critical Literacy
    • Literacies
    • Topics
    • Conferences & Events
    • News & Events
    • Volunteer
    • Tutor
    • Teacher Educator
    • Special Education Teacher
    • Reading Specialist
    • Literacy Coach
    • Content Types

    #ILAchat: Fake News

    By ILA Staff
     | Feb 02, 2017

    renee hobbs headshotIn our modern times, with a 24-hour news cycle, glancing social media headlines, and polished websites run by the most partisan of groups, it looks like all that glitters is not necessarily gold in the news business.

    Enter the term “fake news”—two words used toward both credible and non-credible media alike. How can educators tell the difference? And how do you teach students to discern facts from opinion, or downright fiction?

    Join us on Twitter Thursday, February 9, at 8:00 p.m. ET when Renee Hobbs, Patrick Larkin, and other guests will talk about how to find accurate reporting and how to approach critical and media literacy in the classroom.

    Hobbs is professor of Communication Studies at the University of Rhode Island, where she directs the Media Education Lab. The lab’s mission is to improve the practice of media literacy education through both studies and service. She is the codirector of the URI Graduate Certificate in Digital Literacy and is the founding coeditor of the Journal of Media Literacy Education, the official publication of the National Association for Media Literacy Education. In addition, she wrote six books and more than 150 scholarly and professional articles, and she created award-winning multimedia curricula, including Mind Over Media: Analyzing Contemporary Propaganda. 

    Larkin is the Assistant Superintendent for Learning in Burlington Public Schools in Massachusetts, a NASSP National Digital Principal Award Winner, and former Massachusetts Assistant Principal of the Year who led the first 1:1 iPad high school implementation in the state. He has recently taken a close interest in the “fake news” phenomenon and is a writer for Education Week.

    Come armed with your questions and best strategies in encouraging students to be critical readers and thinkers. Don’t forget to use #ILAchat to join the conversation and follow ILAToday and Hobbs on Twitter.

     

    Read More
Back to Top

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives