Key Legislative Reading Issues

Key Legislative Reading Issues

2008

February 2008

IRA

Governmental Relations Committee

Jesse C. Moore, Chair
Karen Wixson, Board Liaison
Jennifer L. Barrett
Michael Cena
Kimberly Collier
Janis E. Gibson
Melaine Cohen Goodman
Paul L. Haupt
Margaret H. Hill
Richard Oldrieve
Robert H. Pritchard
Martha V. Strachan
Jane E. Kline, Ex Officio
Richard Long, Ex Officio
Cathy M. Roller, Ex Officio
Barbara Tierney, Ex Officio

Government Relations Advisory Committee
Oweita Calvert
Suzanne R. Clewell
Linda E. Hardison
Jack W. Humphrey
Natalie B. Smith

February 2008

Executive Summary

State council presidents, vice-presidents, International Reading Association (IRA) coordinators, legislative chairs, and participants in the 2007 Governmental Relations Workshop were asked to complete a survey concerning legislative reading issues. One hundred twenty-five surveys representing 34 states were returned.

Two types of data analysis were unitized in preparing this report. Quantitative results involved the priority ranking of 10 issues: 1) Availability of reading instructional materials, 2) Federal legislation, 3) Initial preparation, 4) Reading certification/licenses, 5) Reading needs of specialized populations, 6) State governmental affairs, 7) State reading issues, 8) State reading standards and tests, 9) Sufficient funding for current books and other print materials, and 10) Support for students reading well below their grade placement. Each area was rated high priority, average priority, or low priority. Qualitative results included comments in all the above areas, most important state issues, and how the IRA could be of help.

Table 1 shows the priority rankings by all respondents. Respondents marked 53 percent of their responses as high priority, 35 percent as average priority, and 13 percent as low priority. Federal legislation was ranked as the highest priority area. The lowest priority was state governmental affairs.

Table 1. Priority Rankings by All Respondents

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	56	51	16
Federal Legislation	91	30	4
Initial Preparation	74	39	5
Reading Certification/Licenses	65	48	12
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	73	38	13
State Governmental Affairs	44	47	31
State Reading Issues	48	57	19
State Reading Standards and Tests	77	37	5
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	53	44	26
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	76	51	13
Total	657 (53%)	442 (35%)	144 (12%)

Table 2 compares the priority rankings by all respondents in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Federal legislation and state reading standards and tests were consistently ranked highest during the three years. State governmental affairs dropped from a 2006 rank of 1 to the lowest rank in 2008.

Table 2. Comparison of 2006, 2007, and 2008 Priority Rankings by All Respondents

Area	2006 Rank	2007 Rank	2008 Rank
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	8	9	7
Federal Legislation	1	2	1
Initial Preparation	3	8	4
Reading Certification/Licenses	6	7	6
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	5	3	5
State Governmental Affairs	1	5	10
State Reading Issues	7	5	9
State Reading Standards and Tests	2	1	2
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	10	10	8
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	4	4	3

Qualitative analysis of comments revealed that:

Availability of Reading Instructional Materials: Secondary schools receive lower reading funding than elementary schools. Supplementary materials for a wide range of reading levels are needed. Excellent and appropriate materials are available, but funding is low for some school districts and a low priority for states.

Federal Legislation: Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) has unrealistic expectations. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) needs serious attention, including accommodations needed for sub groups. Funding is inadequate for programs.

Initial Preparation: Teachers need core courses in reading. Schools should provide ongoing professional development and mentoring. Reading mentors and reading coaches are needed. College teacher preparation programs need courses devoted to content reading skills.

Reading Certification/Licenses: Many teachers are in literacy positions without reading licensure. These positions include reading coaches, reading specialists, and literacy coaches. More reading courses should be required.

Reading Needs of Specialized Populations: English Language Learners (ELL) teachers need better training in how to help Special Education (SPED) students in reading. More support is needed for struggling readers. Teachers also need more support and training.

State Governmental Affairs: State associations need to recruit and train good governmental relations committee members. Many states are having success in working with state departments of education and state legislatures while others are finding it difficult to work with departments of education and state governments.

State Reading Issues: State governmental relations committees and state reading associations have made state legislatures more aware of reading issues. More attention should be given to state issues by state reading associations.

State Reading Standards and Tests: There is too much emphasis on state tests and state standards. English and reading standards should be separated when tested.

Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials: Schools need fully supported school libraries. Funding is needed for professional school librarians and books and other printed materials for school libraries and classrooms.

Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement: There is a need for enforcement of qualified teachers in helping struggling readers. More early, middle, and high school reading intervention is needed. More time is needed for supporting struggling readers.

Other Issues: These included funding, teacher training for reading, Response To Intervention (RTI), role of literacy specialists and qualifications in reading, achievement gap in urban districts, high school graduation rates, and reading and technology.

Respondents from 31 states provided the most important reading issues in their states. The most frequently mentioned were funding, state testing, reading courses for teacher candidates, reading certification/licenses, and NCLB.

Additional suggestions were provided by respondents. They included recruiting college students to belong to the IRA; concern about RTI and the lack of reading specialists; states making federal mandates too complicated; need for books, materials, and technology; reading specialists; minority students’ achievement; provide state associations with monthly electronic updates; keeping the focus on reading; and bringing awareness to states about reading problems.

The most frequently mentioned suggestion about how the IRA can help was to promote the need for certified/licensed reading teachers, reading coaches, and reading specialists. Other suggestions were to continue reporting best practices and research; to keep working at the federal level, especially on NCLB, to provide training in how to work with legislatures and state departments of education; to highlight current issues in Reading Today and other IRA journals; to send news releases to major newspapers; and to develop a policy statement or position paper on RTI.

Five areas received higher priority ranking than average and low priority rankings combined. These were federal legislation, initial preparation, reading needs of specialized populations, state reading standards and tests, and support for students reading well below their grade placement.

Rankings and comments from all areas of the survey reveal that legislation in the five areas should focus on the following:

Federal Legislation. NCLB has unrealistic expectations. The expectations for sub groups that impact on AYP should be reviewed. Funding is inadequate to achieve expectations of federal legislation. Middle and high schools need more reading intervention help.

Initial Preparation. Teacher education programs need more reading courses. New teachers need reading mentors and reading coaches.

Reading Needs of Specialized Populations. Qualified teachers are needed to help struggling readers. ELL and SPED teachers need better training in reading.

State Reading Standards and Tests. Too much emphasis is placed on state standards and tests. English and reading standards should be separated when tested.

Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placements. Middle and high schools need more reading intervention help. Teachers with strong reading backgrounds are needed to help struggling readers.

In the other five areas, legislation should focus on the following:

Funding for reading materials, especially supplementary materials;
Awareness of reading certification/licensing in other states and replicating appropriate programs;
Increased and equitable funding for reading programs;
Reasonable interpretation of federal initiatives; and
Fully supported school libraries.

Key Legislative Reading Issues 2008

Results of Previous Surveys

Federal legislation, including NCLB, state standards and tests influenced by federal legislation, struggling readers, highly qualified teachers with reading certification/licenses, and adequate funding for reading have all been listed as the highest priority for legislative action during the past five surveys.

In 2003 the key state issues were funding/budget, Reading First and NCLB, and high states assessment.

In 2004 the top five key issues were NCLB, high stakes and other testing, accountability, adequate funding, and highly qualified teachers.

In 2005 the top five key issues were NCLB, testing, accountability, highly qualified teachers, and standards/benchmarks.

In 2006 the top five key issues were federal legislation, state reading standards and tests, initial preparation of teachers, support for students reading well below their grade placements, and reading needs of specialized populations.

In 2007 the top five key issues were state reading standards and tests, federal legislation, reading needs of specialized populations, reading certification/licenses, and state governmental affairs and state reading issues.

Methodology

State council presidents, vice-presidents, IRA coordinators, legislative chairs, and participants in the 2007 Governmental Relations Workshop were mailed a survey with an addressed and stamped return envelope on October 22, 2007 with a return date of November 16, 2007. The survey requested information from respondents concerning their state and professional position and their priority rating and comments concerning availability of reading instructional materials, federal legislation, initial preparation, reading certification/licenses, reading needs of specialized populations, state governmental affairs, state reading issues, state reading standards and tests, sufficient funding for current books and other print materials, support for students reading well below their grade placements, other issues, the most important reading issues in their states, and how the IRA could be of help. A total of 125 surveys representing 34 states was returned.

Quantitative Results

Priority Ranking

Respondents ranked the following areas: a) availability of reading instructional materials, b) federal legislation, c) initial preparation, d) reading certification/licenses, e) reading needs of specialized populations, f) state governmental affairs, g) state reading issues,

h) state reading standards and tests, i) sufficient funding for current books and other printed materials, and j) support for students reading well below their grade placement. Each area was rated high priority, average priority, or low priority.

Table 3 shows the priority rankings by state council presidents. The area with the highest priority was state reading standards and tests. State governmental affairs were the lowest priority.

Table 3. Priority Rankings by State Council Presidents.

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	4	4	1
Federal Legislation	7	2	0
Initial Preparation	7	2	0
Reading Certification/Licenses	6	2	1
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	7	2	0
State Governmental Affairs	4	2	3
State Reading Issues	3	6	0
State Reading Standards and Tests	8	1	0
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	6	2	1
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	6	3	0
Total	58 (64%)	26 (29%)	6 (7%)

Table 4 shows the priority rankings by state vice-presidents. The area with the highest priority was reading needs of specialized populations. The area with the lowest priority was the availability of reading instructional materials.

Table 4. Priority Rankings by State Vice-Presidents

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	1	5	0
Federal Legislation	4	2	1
Initial Preparation	5	2	0
Reading Certification/Licenses	4	3	0
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	7	0	0
State Governmental Affairs	5	2	0
State Reading Issues	4	3	0
State Reading Standards and Tests	2	3	0
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	2	5	0
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	6	1	0
Total	40 (60%)	26 (39%)	1 (1%)

Table 5 shows the priority rankings by State IRA Coordinators. The highest priority was federal legislation. Low priority areas were state governmental affairs and sufficient funding for current books and other print materials.

Table 5. Priority Rankings by State IRA Coordinators

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	3	8	2
Federal Legislation	11	2	0
Initial Preparation	9	2	0
Reading Certification/Licenses	6	6	0
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	9	3	1
State Governmental Affairs	4	4	5
State Reading Issues	7	3	3
State Reading Standards and Tests	10	2	0
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	4	5	4
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	8	5	0
Total	71 (56%)	40 (32%)	15 (12%)

Table 6 shows the priority rankings by state legislative chairs. The areas with the highest priority were federal legislation and initial preparation. The area with the lowest priority was the availability of reading instructional materials.

Table 6. Priority Rankings by State Legislative Chairs.

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	4	11	4
Federal Legislation	16	3	0
Initial Preparation	15	3	1
Reading Certification/Licenses	10	6	3
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	13	6	0
State Governmental Affairs	9	7	2
State Reading Issues	10	8	1
State Reading Standards and Tests	8	10	0
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	5	13	1
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	13	6	0
Total	103 (55%)	73 (39%)	12 (6%)

Table 7 shows the priority rankings by other state leaders. The highest priority was federal legislation. The lowest priority was state governmental affairs.

Table 7. Priority Rankings by Other State Leaders

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	44	23	9
Federal Legislation	53	21	3
Initial Preparation	38	29	5
Reading Certification/Licenses	36	31	8
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	37	27	12
State Governmental Affairs	22	32	21
State Reading Issues	21	37	15
State Reading Standards and Tests	49	21	5
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	36	19	21
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	43	19	13
Total	379 (50%)	259 (35%)	112 (15%)

Table 8 shows the priority rankings by teachers. The areas with the highest priority were federal legislation and state reading standards and tests. The lowest priority area was state governmental affairs.

Table 8. Priority Rankings by Teachers

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	34	24	9
Federal Legislation	43	21	4
Initial Preparation	32	27	5
Reading Certification/Licenses	32	31	4
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	34	23	10
State Governmental Affairs	17	28	21
State Reading Issues	18	31	14
State Reading Standards and Tests	44	17	5
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	29	21	17
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	35	18	13
Total	318 (48%)	241 (37%)	102 (15%)

Table 9 shows the priority rankings by school administrators. The highest priority areas were federal legislation and support for students reading well below their grade placement. The lowest priority areas were availability of reading instructional materials and reading licenses/certification.

Table 9. Priority Rankings by School Administrators

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	4	2	2
Federal Legislation	7	1	0
Initial Preparation	5	2	1
Reading Certification/Licenses	3	3	2
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	7	1	0
State Governmental Affairs	6	1	1
State Reading Issues	4	4	0
State Reading Standards and Tests	6	3	0
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	4	3	1
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	8	0	0
Total	54 (67%)	20 (25%)	7 (8%)

Table 10 shows the priority rankings by college professors. The highest rankings were federal legislation and initial preparation. The lowest rated area was state reading issues.

Table 10. Priority Rankings by College Professors

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	10	6	1
Federal Legislation	14	3	0
Initial Preparation	14	2	1
Reading Certification/Licenses	8	6	3
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	13	2	2
State Governmental Affairs	6	8	3
State Reading Issues	4	10	3
State Reading Standards and Tests	10	5	1
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	6	8	3
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	9	8	0
Total	94 (56%)	58 (34%)	17 (10%)

Table 11 shows the priority rankings by other professional positions. The area with the highest rating was federal legislation. The area with the lowest rating was the availability of reading instructional materials.

Table 11. Priority Rankings by Other Professional Positions

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	5	12	0
Federal Legislation	15	2	0
Initial Preparation	11	5	0
Reading Certification/Licenses	10	4	3
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	11	4	2
State Governmental Affairs	10	2	5
State Reading Issues	7	8	2
State Reading Standards and Tests	9	8	0
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	8	6	3
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	13	4	0
Total	99 (59%)	55 (32%)	15 (9%)

Table 12 shows the priority rankings by all respondents. Respondents marked 53 percent of their responses as high priority, 35 percent as average priority, and 13 percent as low priority. Federal legislation was ranked as the highest priority area as was the case in both 2006 and 2007. The lowest priority was state governmental affairs.

Table 12. Priority Rankings by All Respondents

Area	High Priority	Average Priority	Low Priority
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	56	51	16
Federal Legislation	91	30	4
Initial Preparation	74	39	5
Reading Certification/Licenses	65	48	12
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	73	38	13
State Governmental Affairs	44	47	31
State Reading Issues	48	57	19
State Reading Standards and Tests	77	37	5
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	53	44	26
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	76	51	13
Total	657 (53%)	442 (35%)	144 (12%)

Table13 compares the priority rankings by all respondents in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Federal legislation and state reading standards and tests were consistently ranked highest during the three years. State governmental affairs dropped from a 2006 rank of 1 to the lowest rank in 2008.

Table13. Comparison of 2006, 2007, and 2008 Priority Rankings by All Respondents

Area	2006 Rank	2007 Rank	2008 Rank
Availability of Reading Instructional Materials	8	9	7
Federal Legislation	1	2	1
Initial Preparation	3	8	4
Reading Certification/Licenses	6	7	6
Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	5	3	5
State Governmental Affairs	1	5	10
State Reading Issues	7	5	9
State Reading Standards and Tests	2	1	2
Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials	10	10	8
Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	4	4	3

Table 14 shows the highest and lowest priority rankings by state IRA positions. Federal legislation received the most high priority ranks, while the lowest priorities concerned reading instructional materials and state government affairs.

Table 14. Priority Rankings by State IRA Positions

State Position	Highest Priority Rank	Lowest Priority Rank
President	State Reading Standards and Tests	State Government Affairs
Vice-President	Reading Needs of Specialized Populations	Availability of Reading Instructional Materials
IRA Coordinator	Federal Legislation	Sufficient Funding for Current Books and Other Print Materials
State Legislative Chair	Federal Legislation and Initial Preparation	Availability of Reading Instructional Materials
Other	Federal Legislation	State Government Affairs

Table 15 shows the priority rankings by professional positions. Federal legislation was the overall highest rated area, while the lowest rank was state governmental affairs.

Table 15. Priority Rankings by Professional Positions

Position	Highest Rank	Lowest Rank
Teacher	Federal Legislation and State Reading Standards and Tests	State Governmental Affairs
School Administrator	Federal Legislation and Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement	Availability of Reading Instructional Materials and Reading Certification/Licenses
College Professor	Federal Legislation and Initial Preparation	State Reading Issues
Other	Federal Legislation	State Governmental Affairs

Qualitative Results

The 125 respondents to the survey provided 264 comments concerning the reading priorities in their states. Responses to the survey were categorized into 11 themes:

a) availability of reading instructional materials, b) federal legislation, c) initial preparation, d) reading certification/licenses, e) reading needs of specialized populations, f) state governmental affairs, g) state reading issues, h) state reading standards and tests,

i) sufficient funding for current books and other print materials, j) support for students reading well below their grade placement, and k) other reading issues. The responses were additionally categorized into sub-themes for each major theme. Those sub-themes are listed in Table 16 below.

Table 16. Themes in Survey Comments

Theme

Frequency

Sub-themes

Availability of Reading

Instructional Materials

Total 40

Secondary schools receive lower reading funding than elementary schools.

Supplementary materials for a wide range of reading levels are needed.

Funding is low for new materials.

There is Inequality between districts.

Excellent and appropriate materials are available.

Reading is a Low state priority.

Funds available if they meet NCLB Reading First criteria.

More training is needed on materials.

New reading adoption has everything needed.

Federal Legislation

Total 37

AYP has unrealistic expectations.

Funding is needed to make significant progress.

NCLB needs serious attention.

Accommodations need to be made for sub groups.

NCLB needs revamping for SPED and ELL students.

Reading First is successfully raising scores.

Accountability is directed by state board of education rather than state department of education.

After a school reaches AYP, programs and funds cease.

Federal legislation requires more and more work time.

Homeless supportive instruction is needed.

Less testing and oversight and more direct services are needed.

Mandates need full funding.

NCLB does not need to be renewed.

Reading First is under funded.

RTI needs attention.

SPED students cannot handle regular tests.

Statewide literacy courses and exams are mandated for all teachers.

The state board employs few educators.

Initial Preparation

Total 19

Teachers need core courses in reading.

New teachers need professional development.

Reading mentors and reading coaches are needed.

College teacher prep programs need to have courses devoted to content reading skills.

ELL and SPED teachers need to know how to teach reading and how to interface with classroom teachers.

State departments and colleges need to work together.

Reading Certification/

Licenses

Total 17

Hundreds of teachers are in literacy positions without reading licensure.

All teacher education programs need more reading courses.

Certified reading specialists are needed at every level.

Clear definitions of the titles reading specialist/teacher and reading coaches are needed.

ELL and SPED teachers not required to have reading courses.

Need to offer more incentives for teachers to pursue reading license.

Ongoing staff development is needed in addition to reading licenses.

Priority is in definition of highly qualified and the difficulty of find such applicants in rural schools.

Reading certification is now P-4, 4-8, and 7-12.

Reading coaches/specialists should have appropriate certification.

Reading specialists employed by districts may not have reading endorsement.

Specialized grade reading licenses is better than K-12 certification.

States need to work on clear path to reading license.

Teachers would take more reading classes if not required to be in a Master’s program.

Reading Needs of

Specialized Populations

Total 16

ELL teachers need better training on how to help SPED students in reading.

Colleges need to provide better preparation for teachers of young adolescents.

ESL education needs more attention.

Middle schools are virtually being ignored while elementary gets all the support.

More support is needed for adolescent literacy.

Ongoing staff development is needed.

Programs and needed for struggling readers.

Reading certification or requirements for teaching reading in Title I or reading resources is lacking.

Reading teachers are needed for middle schools.

RTI model is now being implemented.

SPED teachers need reading training.

State is focusing on preschool and middle and high school reform.

Teachers need more support.

Teachers need more training.

Urban and rural poor present a serious challenge.

State Governmental

Affairs

Total 16

Good state governmental relations committee members are needed.

Issues don’t always get resolved due to budget problems.

Councils are proactive but districts not.

State council is building bridges with state board.

State group has helped U. S. representative to introduce striving reader’s legislation.

State is training members to work with state legislature.

State legislators are more aware of the need for funding.

State legislators were helped to override the governor’s veto of legislation.

State legislature is not interested in education.

State needs should be a priority

State needs to support adolescent boys’ reading needs.

The state department of education and state board are not involved with professional organizations as in the past.

There is good collaboration in the state.

State Reading Issues

Total 16

State governmental relations committee has made state legislature more aware of reading issues.

The state council is working to build better relationships with state.

We need to give state issues more attention.

High stakes testing is more important that teaching the whole child.

Lack of reading certification for coaches is a problem.

Little emphasis is placed on reading comprehension.

Reading First has been successful.

State association successfully lobbied for a full master’s degree program to certify reading specialists.

The state department of education supports reading recovery.

We struggle with DIBELS.

State Reading Standards and Tests

Total 23

There is too much emphasis on state tests.

English and reading standards should be separated when tested.

There is too much attention to state standards.

DIBELS curriculum is poor.

NCLB has forced state to examine standards and evaluate testing instruments.

Not all students will meet standards.

Reading standards will soon be revised.

Standards are low, so test results are improving.

State department of education is active in setting guidelines and preparing tests.

State may require a graduation test, but details are not known.

State standards and tests are aligned.

State test has changed to new vendor questions and report systems.

State testing aligns well in the grade level expectation, but many expectations are not tested.

Teachers need to be trained on how to utilize test information.

Tests need to reflect the interest of the current population as well as the reading frame work.

Too much time spent on testing and teaching to the test.

Sufficient Funding for

Current Books and

Other Print Materials

Total 25

Schools need fully supported libraries.

Funding varies widely between districts.

Library positions have been cut.

School library collections are outdated and falling apart.

Funds are needed for classroom library books.

Funding is adequate.

State funding is inadequate.

No money is available to replace books and technology.

Quality materials are needed.

Too much is designated for canned programs.

Support for Students Reading Well Below Their Grade Placement

Total 31

There is a need for enforcement of qualified teachers in helping struggling readers.

Middle and high schools need more reading intervention help.

More early intervention programs are needed.

More time is needed for reading.

There is a strong need in the state to support struggling readers.

Funding is inadequate.

No Title I help is available after fifth grade.

RTI is big in the state.

Colleges provide targeted intervention training for student teachers.

Funds are available when AYP is not met.

Guidelines are needed for after school intervention programs.

More alternative programs and supports would help.

SPED and ELL teachers should be certified in reading.

State does not require reading certificates/teaching certificates for Title I and intervention instructors.

State provides funding for low SES areas, but other areas also need funding for reading education.

The state is moving towards a three tiered model for intervention.

There is great support for struggling readers in our state.

Other Issues

Total 24

Funding

Teacher training for reading

RTI

Role of the literacy specialist and qualifications in reading

Too much emphasis on test scores

Achievement gap in urban districts

Credentials of reading coaches

High school graduation tests

How states define AYP

Keeping current with research and best practice

NCLB and ELL and SPED students

NCLB unrealistic goals

Number and credentials of middle and high school reading specialists

Reading and Technology

Recognition and addressing of new literacies

Top students neglected

Survey comments indicated the following:

Federal Legislation: AYP has unrealistic expectations. NCLB needs serious attention, including accommodations needed for sub groups. Funding is inadequate for programs.

Reading Needs of Specialized Populations: ELL teachers need better training in how to help SPED students in reading. More support is needed for struggling readers. Teachers need more support and training.

State Governmental Affairs: States associations need to recruit and train good governmental relations committee members. Many states are having success in working with state departments of education and state legislatures, while others are finding it difficult to work with departments of education and state governments.

State Reading Standards and Tests: There is too much emphasis on state tests and state standards. English and reading standards should be separated when tested.

Other Issues: These include funding, teacher training for reading, RTI, role of literacy specialists and qualifications in reading, achievement gap in urban districts, high school graduation rates, and reading and technology.

Most Important State Issues

Respondents from 31 states provided the most important reading issues in their states. All responses are listed in Table 17. While there were many different issues provided by respondents, the most frequently mentioned were funding, state testing, reading courses for teacher candidates, reading certification, and NCLB.

Table 17. Most Important Reading Issues by State


ALABAMA	Content information, reading as comprehension and not decoding

ARIZONA	NCLB and Reading First

ARKANSAS	State assessments Increasing of college undergraduate courses in reading development for all education majors from preschool through high school

COLORADO	Collaboration of practitioners with the State Board of Education gaining a professional voice in legislation

CONNECTICUT	The achievement gap

DELAWARE	Making certain all students are successful in their learning

FLORIDA	Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) too much testing and using a single measure to base decision on

IDAHO	State adopting the RTI model to direct intervention Very focused in CBM that focuses on CWPM DIBELS and AMS testing drives instruction Helping the legislature and the state department understand the limitations of assessments

ILLINOIS	Working with the state for input The certification to become a reading teacher is controlled by a few powerful universities. This does not allow all teachers access to reading courses. RTI has been handed over to SPED teachers who know very little about reading, especially struggling adolescent readers. Availability of quality literature in the classrooms Understanding of the actual time on task of reading to support struggling readers What the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) scores are for each school Ineffective instruction. Teachers need to be highly trained so that we don't have to witness so many students' struggle. Assessment of reading ability must be adjusted Getting students to read and comprehend at grade level Making AYP/ Benchmarks/High ISAT/ITBS scores Funding Equal funding across the state Need for innovative programs to change old problems Low test scores Semi-literate students/struggling readers lack of support Most schools are test driven which does not allow them to teach evidence-based practices much of the time. State standards and achievement testing Differentiated instruction to meet all student needs Policymakers should have experiences in schools/classrooms as an educator before enacting educational laws. Reading needs of specialized populations Bilingual education Inequity of funding between school districts Updating of material resources Money for smaller class sizes and support staff NCLB and standardized tests Reading support for ESL students Highly qualified teachers teaching reading Certified reading specialists in all schools Funding new library materials for low-income districts Appropriate assessments for ESL/SPED Struggling students have to meet the same standards as non-struggling students.

INDIANA	Provide more funding for school library books A lack of emphasis on middle schools and secondary and carrying through with a commitment Reading certification of reading teachers

IOWA	Funding for public preschool and K-3 initiative Staff development and programs for ELL Establishing curricula which include teaching reading strategies in all content areas, 4th to 12th grades.

KANSAS	Passing/meeting the standards We are teaching to the test, not to the individual and their needs.

KENTUCKY	Gaining support and funding for work with struggling adolescent readers is the most important issue. Reading First has been great at the early end of the continuum but many adolescent and preadolescent readers also need intervention and attention to ensure their success. Preparation of initial certification and reading specialists We need more rigorous higher education programs in response to a needed demand by the Education Professional Standards Board.

MARYLAND	State funding High school assessment graduation requirement in 2009 Teacher training is a top priority. Too often, mentoring teachers, ELL, and SPED teachers do not know how to interface with teachers in classrooms to make their services to students effective. They must know how to help these special populations achieve in reading. Certification for ELL and SPED in READING is the first step. Closing the achievement gap for African Americans

MASSACHUSETTS	Funding services to support students Making AYP Need to address students who are in multiple groups The implementation of Reading First in the state has been problematic in shutting down Reading Recovery and limiting the various reading materials that are effective in teaching reading. The outcome has been the decrease in the state reading test. The required DIBELS testing takes up too much time. Need for highly qualified reading specialists Lack of resources Too much time and money spent on testing

MISSISSIPPI	NCLB and AYP Working to not be ranked 49th or 50th in every important literacy rating system

MONTANA	Lack of funding NCLB and its implications for rural schools achievement gap between Caucasian and American Indian students

NEW HAMPSHIRE	Literacy into the 21st century

NEW JERSEY	Meeting the requirements of NCLB so they do not lose federal monies is a problem. Schools are redirecting monies for classroom and school libraries for books and magazines and going to scripted reading programs just to pass the test. Other subjects such as science, social studies, art, and music are eliminated for all or part of the school year to make room for test taking techniques. Passing the state test

OKLAHOMA	LD/reading failures in upper grades More qualified reading specialists, SPED teachers, and literacy coaches The state is pushing middle level “literacy” Adolescent literacy from grades 4-12 Reading instruction needs to continue throughout the grades with reading instruction being imbedded in the content areas. Our NAEP scores in the 8th grade reading support this need. Research in adolescent literacy is in its infancy stages. Not enough classroom time for reading Not enough transfer of reading skills into content areas Funding issues, money spent on testing

OREGON	Focus on scripted programs and the money trail that supports these programs

PENNSYLVANIA	Certification for initial prep and literacy coaching The continued practice of teaching to the test is now beginning to hit at the middle and high school levels. More is required of classroom teachers to show progress but funding and freedom to allow students to be creative learners is being taken away. The variety of literacy certifications and the confusion of the various roles

RHODE ISLAND	Only reading related funding accountability AYP

SOUTH CAROLINA	There is too much emphasis on the state testing! There is also too much emphasis on leveled reading, so there isn't a good balance. Accelerated Reader and Reading Counts is still present and should have died with the dinosaurs!

TENNESSEE	Understanding of how to implement differentiated curriculum Textbooks affordability Funding for districts

TEXAS	ELL and support for struggling readers Adolescent literacy

UTAH	Lack of state-supported standards and cohesive reading preparation policies Funding and resources Because our state spends less than any other on education costs per student, there are little resources for tutors, teachers, and SPED for help, especially for our ESL population.

VIRGINIA	We were able to get one reading teacher per 1000 students included in the state standards of quality. Now we want to press for state funding of these reading specialists who would be highly qualified certified reading teachers.

WASHINGTON	Every dollar goes to math; next year will most likely be science. Other than Reading First (in its last year), there is no state funding for reading such as coaches or professional development. The over-testing we are currently required by federal legislation to conduct Millions of dollars are siphoned away from programs that could assist students become more skilled and thus more successful. We don't need the currently required amount of state testing to identify those students and schools in need of help! The lack of fully-funded education in Washington. There is a great disparity between schools districts because the state does not fulfill its promise to fund K-12 education in Washington. Because of this, many children in poor districts do not receive the same quality of education as children in better off districts. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has created and is pushing a recommended reading curriculum list onto school districts. The list is very biased toward scripted programs. The Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) is a problem especially for reading disabled kids who try really hard and never make the grade. Preparation of truly highly qualified teachers of reading is needed. This involves use/deployment of literacy specialists and what their level of preparation is in the kind of highly specialized knowledge and skills needed for students who struggle with reading. Preparation of teachers who understand ELL issues and have strong research based practices to use There are special educators in the state who are filling the role that a well-prepared literacy specialist who has much stronger background in reading should be playing.

WEST VIRGINIA	RTI

WISCONSIN	Insufficient number of teachers obtaining the reading teacher certification Low number of people getting the reading specialist licenses The effects of NCLB and standardized assessments on students, schools, districts, and teachers RTI (promotion of programs) Standardized testing

Table 18 provides the most important reading issues by IRA regions. For all regions, funding, state tests, certification/licenses, and federal legislation were the most frequently listed issues. The states in the various regions are East: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; Great Lakes: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin; Plains: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota; Rocky Mountain: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming; Southeast: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; Southwest: Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas; and West: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

Table 18. Most Important Reading Issues by IRA Regions

IRA Region

Frequency

Reading Issues

East

Certification/licenses

Funding

State tests

Federal legislation

Great Lakes

Funding

State tests

Certification/licenses

Special populations

Federal legislation

RTI

Plains

ELL

Funding

Staff development

State tests

Rocky Mountain

State tests

Funding

Federal legislation

RTI

Southeast

Funding

Certification/licenses

Federal legislation

State tests

Southwest

Adolescent literacy

Certification/licenses

Funding

Federal legislation

Special populations

State tests

West

Funding

State tests

Certification/licenses

Federal legislation

Additional suggestions were provided by respondents from 13 states as shown in Table 19. They included recruiting college students to belong to IRA; concern about RTI and the lack of reading specialists; states making federal mandates too complicated; need for books, materials, and technology; reading specialists; minority students’ achievement; provide state associations with monthly electronic updates; keeping the focus on reading; and bringing awareness to states about reading problems.

Table 19. Other Suggestions or Comments.


ARIZONA	We need ways to influence college students to belong to IRA (not just as a resume builder) but because of the sense of professionalism it provides.

CONNECTICUT	Under RTI the team approach is a good idea and collaboration is a necessity. However, the team is composed largely of SPED members and only one reading specialist, if available. Not only are reading specialists outnumbered on the team, there are no federal funds for support as there are for SPED.

DELAWARE	Delaware has made every federal law too complicated through their regulations in areas such as state testing, consolidated grant, RTI, and Reading First. You see we do things more complicated then any other state.

IDAHO	Federal support for books, materials, and technology

ILLINOIS	More involvement in monitoring the job and effectiveness of a reading specialist in schools Minority students reading below level needs to be addressed more often. There are various programs but how effective are they?

INDIANA	Find out what is going on in various states and send to all with monthly electronic updates.

IOWA	We need to urge our Senators and Representatives to stop tying special interest "Earmarks" funding to educational funding bills.

KENTUCKY	The focus should remain on reading literacy as so often in education the continuum shifts after time. Literacy is the basis for all other content subjects. Without continued cultivation, even Reading First's successes will be dimmed. The nation as a whole needs more concentrated focus on literacy issues!

MARYLAND	Thanks for conducting this valuable survey!

MISSISSIPPI	Thank you IRA for working with many other professional organizations to set literacy standards and guidelines. It seems that when state departments are left to their own devices, many mistakes are mandated.

MONTANA	Thank you!

NEW JERSEY	Put on conferences within the states (regions) and include professional organizations to co-sponsor and/or attend the research/scientifically based professional development.

OKLAHOMA	I believe this survey serves a vital need in letting other states know what the problems throughout the nation are. It can help bring awareness to these problems.

How the IRA Can Help

Table 18 provides state suggestions about how the IRA can help. The most frequently mentioned suggestion by far was to promote the need for certified/licensed reading teachers, reading coaches, and reading specialists. Other suggestions were to continue reporting best practices and research; to keep working at the federal level, especially on NCLB; to provide training in how to work with legislatures and state departments of education; to highlight current issues in Reading Today and other IRA journals; to send news releases to major newspapers; and to develop a policy statement or position paper on RTI.

Table 18. State Suggestions on How the IRA Can Be of Help


ALABAMA	IRA should continue to advocate for comprehension centered instruction.

ARIZONA	IRA should provide us with information on research based practices on fluency and comprehension through *Reading Today*.

ARKANSAS	IRA should encourage school districts to hire reading specialists who are licensed and have advanced degrees in reading. IRA should provide help on how to address colleges and universities to improve and increase the number of reading courses for all education majors.

CONNECTICUT	IRA should be as supportive as possible and vocal about the need for reading/literacy specialists, properly certified and to be involved at all tier levels in RTI. What about federal funding for certified reading specialists? Aren't they a crucial part of improving classroom instruction and instruction for struggling readers?

FLORIDA	IRA should continue to raise awareness.

IDAHO	IRA should provide materials/emails that ICIRA can use to educate/inform the state board of education and state board of education administrators. IRA should provide training in how to work with difficult and conservative legislators and state department people.

ILLINOIS	IRA should keep working at the federal level. IRA should put out a policy statement on RTI. There should be more research on Adolescent Development in literacy and more access to special committees interest groups. Workshops for teachers are needed don't cause them to miss school, for example, summer workshops. Perhaps IRA could offer services to schools requesting their assistance. Show legislators research based evidence that high stakes testing is not the all, end all and there are other ways to test achievement. Offer more training and grant opportunities. Highlight and promoting what is working in other states. Seeking equitable legislation for schools, teachers, and parents. Help states seeking equitable legislation for schools, teachers, and parents. Help pilot and fund more programs that put books and resources in the hands of teachers and students. Help with providing funding that will be placed directly into the classroom setting. Convince schools that beneficial reading instruction is more effective than teaching to pass the ISAT reading. Provide materials and resources to help deficient readers lobby for immediate financial reform. Advocate for teachers. Advocate for support services. Promote the professional aspect of our jobs. Governmental staff will recognize our efforts and stop walking all over teachers! Teacher training research based training for administrators suggest balancing funding for districts statewide. Voicing what research says to the state legislator. Show data on literacy concerns within IL. Professional development/research. Push for funding more teacher workshops and leveled material. Encourage teachers to focus on reading and writing across curriculum.

INDIANA	IRA should work with the American Library Association to promote the need for current and useful books and other print materials in school libraries. IRA should help find leaders who will take a more active role and become involved in the politics of the situation. IRA should continue to lobby and play a key role in decisions at federal level.

KANSAS	IRA should help to educate more legislators about students and that taking one high-stakes test is not progress!

KENTUCKY	IRA should create policy statements which support mandate adequate training for reading professionals and government support for adolescent literacy needs.

MARYLAND	IRA should send position papers to state governors and state legislative chairs and continue to provide the packages of study and workshop materials. Focus on ELL and SPED students with new workshops. Do a survey. See how many kits have been sold to which states and how are they used. IRA should continue reporting best practices and research celebrate our hard working teachers!

MASSACHUSETTS	IRA should continue to keep us updated and informed, continue to respond to our questions, and provide us valuable resources and feedback to our initiatives and communication with legislatures and MADOE. IRA should publish more research on closing the achievement gap, specifically how to meet the needs of students who fall into multiple subgroups. IRA should continue the advocacy of support for effective reading (literacy) issues in the nation through sponsoring the governmental relations workshop so that the state LAT member can network and keep communication as a priority.

MISSISSIPPI	IRA should help MS reading association focus on legislative issues and literacy coaches with credentials.

MONTANA	IRA should continue to disseminate information to council leaders and provide legislative information to share with councils.

NEWHAMPSHIRE	IRA has been addressing these topics in their journals.

NEW JERSEY	IRA should continue to expand their advocacy efforts into the states. It should network with other professional organizations like the supervisors, principals, and boards of education that are also conflicted by the rules and regulations of NCLB. IRA should seek better standardization practices across the country for students preparing to be educators. IRA should seek acceptances of degrees and certification as educators move from state to state.

OKLAHOMA	IRA should pursue incentive for teachers to feel a need to continue education (reading specialist, SPED). SPED teachers need more education in teaching reading. Continue to provide districts and states with current information. IRA should stress content area reading skills (more articles, more books, more sessions at local, state, national level). IRA should continue to inject reason and a focus on children's diverse needs into the national debate.

PA	IRA has been very effective at the national level in raising awareness on the effects of NCLB. We at the state level thank you. On the state level, we would like to see more personal input by having your experts attend local board meetings with current, down to earth suggestions on how to reach the local school boards and administrators with the message of supporting literacy growth. IRA should clarify the various roles by specific job descriptions in the revised standards for reading professionals and identify specific roles of the reading specialist which is not identified in the 2003 standards.

RHODE ISLAND	IRA should provide continued publication of research concerning literacy (reading proceeds /development/instruction).

SOUTH CAROLINA	IRA should highlight these current issues in *Reading Today* and other IRA journals and possibly publish in major newspapers.

TENNESSEE	IRA should assist in establishing forums for discussions that need to take place between P12 and university personnel. IRA should work with National Education Association (NEA) and American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to create pro-active legislation that protects academic freedom while ensuring student access to affordable course material. IRA should provide research documentation on strategies to show researched based practices for our state accountability report.


UTAH	IRA should continue to disseminate best practices in reading preparation and life-long reading study via research.

VIRGINIA	IRA should disseminate information about the need for highly qualified reading personnel to state departments of education. State department personnel in Virginia have recommended at public meetings that districts can save money by using teaching assistants to teach reading in some instances.

WASHINGTON	IRA should promote the value of reading literacy in other content areas. For example, how you must learn to read math or read science. Involve high school, middle school and middle grades. IRA should lobby legislators regarding NCLB. IRA should use media to inform public of need to fund excellent reading best practices. IRA should set standards for all kids and help with programs that can help make them attainable. IRA should work with OSPI and other state policy makers to dispel the prevalent, insidious, and highly dangerous myth the IRA is merely a whole language organization.

WEST VIRGINIA	IRA should provide position papers on instituting RTI.

WISCONSIN	IRA should support the efforts of the professors of reading group in Wisconsin to allow undergraduates to take the reading teacher curriculum and obtain reading teacher certification. IRA should take a more vocal stand on reauthorization of NCLB and share information from research about the worth and effects of standardized tests. There is ample evidence that standardized test scores are misused and presented to the public as more reliable than it is. IRA should keep connected with "