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