International Reading Association (IRA) Survey reveals a focus beyond primary grades

By Jack Cassidy, Evan Ortlieb, and Jennifer Shettel The older reader is definitely coming into greater focus in 2011, according to our annual survey of hot and not-so-hot topics in reading education. There is also a corresponding decrease in attention to topics often associated with early reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. The What s !ot" column, which is mar#ing its 1$th anniversary, recogni%es the hottest topics in the field and is pu&lished in the 'ecem&er()anuary issue of the *nternational +eading ,ssociation s mem&ership newspaper, Reading Today. ,dolescent literacy, one of this year s very hot" topics, first appeared on the survey in 2001 and in 200- attained very hot" status and has remained so ever since, according to an analysis of What s !ot" topics in the .arch 2010 issue of *+, s Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. , num&er of recent reports have pointed out the disparity in funding &etween early reading education and funding for older students. The additional funding targeted to early readers resulted in improved scores on national tests, while scores for secondary students remained flat. .any educational organi%ations, e/perts, and policyma#ers agree that more emphasis should &e placed on pushing secondary students to greater achievement0especially &ecause of the current high school dropout rates and also &ecause of the poor showing on international assessments &y students in the 1nited 2tates. 3thers of the very hot" topics in this year s survey also pertain to adolescent learners. 4/tremely hot" topics are those that all respondents agree are receiving a great deal of attention. This year, however, no topic received the e/tremely hot" designation 5unanimous agreement6. 7ut, of the four very hot" topics0adolescent literacy, comprehension, +esponse to *ntervention, and core learning(literacy standards 5those which at least 8$9 of respondents agree are receiving a great deal of attention6, three topics were very hot" in 2010 as well. :ore learning(literacy standards is new to the list of the very hot." 3f the topics losing heat, four are of particular significance. 7esides the early reading topics0 phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency0literacy coaches(reading coaches is also slipping into cooler climes. .ost of our respondents agreed that too much attention had &een paid to these topics in the past. ,lso, literacy coaches were often funded with monies from the +eading ;irst legislation of the 7ush era. 3ur respondents did feel, however, that literacy coaches should &e receiving attention. What's Hot and What's Not? 2 !! "es#lts $%ie& the '()* So+e to,ics &ith heat Core learning/literacy standards was not only a new topic to the list this year, &ut also was considered very hot." :ore learning descri&es what <=12 pupils in the 1nited 2tates should &e achieving each year in 4nglish language arts, as well as literacy in history(social studies, science, and technical su&>ects. ?rade-level standards for literacy include varied topics such as comprehension, creating te/ts, drama, fluency, listening, phonemic awareness, phonics, spea#ing, voca&ulary, and writing. ,s part of a state-led initiative to prepare ,merica s students for college and future careers, the @ational ?overnors ,ssociation for 7est Aractices 5@?,6 and the :ouncil of :hief 2tate 2chool 3fficers 5::2236 in )une 2010 released a set of 4nglish language arts standards called the :ommon :ore 2tate 2tandards. This release mar#ed the &eginning of the adoption and implementation process &y the participating BC states, two territories, and the 'istrict of :olum&ia of the 1nited 2tates.

The purpose of common standards is to ensure that all students are proficient language users so they may succeed in school, contri&ute to society, and pursue their own goals. These standards were designed to provide clear and consistent e/pectations as well as rigorous content and application opportunities. The finali%ed standards were also informed &y top performing countries so students can succeed in the glo&al economy. To read more a&out the core learning standards and to find out which states have adopted them, visit www.corestandards.org. Response to Intervention (RTI) seems to &e a term that is uniDue to the 1nited 2tates, and even some of our 1.2. respondents were unsure of its definition. Ei#e many topics on the list, this term originated with 1.2. legislative action. *n order to curtail the num&er of referrals for special education, recent legislation allows for a percentage of the money normally allocated for special education to &e used for preventive measures. The most popular framewor# for this prevention is often called the three-tier +T* model. Tier 3ne encompasses Duality in-class instruction, often called core" instruction. *f that intervention does not wor#, Tier Two, or short-term, small-group or individual intervention may &e initiated, possi&ly &y a reading specialist. *f that is not effective, Tier Three, more long-term in nature, may &e initiated, and could eventually involve referral to a special education class. *t should &e noted that this is one e/ample of numerous +T* models. ;or more a&out +T*, see the following page or *+, s we&site: www.reading.org(+esources(+esources7yTopic(+esponseTo*ntervention(3verview.asp/. Disciplinary/content area literacy means using specific literacy strategies within content-area classes such as math, science, and social studies. This year, respondents thought the topic, new to the list, was not hot &ut should &e hot. 'isciplinary literacy s#ills and routines have not &een of particular interest historicallyF however, increased attention has resulted from the repeated cross-curricular struggles of adolescent readers. ,s a result, professional communities &ased on shared values such as colla&oration, reflective dialogue, and student learning have flourished. Wor#shops and We& seminars for professional development are also availa&le from some of the leading literacy associations, including *+,. 2pecific standards designed to integrate literacy into content-area classes in grades -=12 are included in the :ommon :ore 2tate 2tandards. :ontent-area literacy strategies are often particular to a specific discipline, unli#e highly generali%a&le s#ills such as decoding, fluency, and comprehension. *+, has a special interest group, :ontent ,rea +eading, focused on content-area literacy. ;or information a&out the group, contact .ary 2por at mwsporGaol.com. 7esides disciplinary(content area literacy, other topics respondents thought should &e hot" included 4nglish as a second language(4nglish language learners, informational(nonfiction te/ts, and writing. *n conclusion, one would hope that this increase of interest in the more mature reader will result in a decrease in the high school dropout rate and a more productive and literate adult population. 4ducators can ta#e advantage of the attention focused on some of these issues and ma#e needed changes in their schools. Thus, &ecause in 2011 adolescent literacy, comprehension, core learning(literacy standards, and +T* are very hot," now seems the ideal time to involve literacy coaches, offer professional development, and facilitate learning communities in secondary schools to train classroom teachers in the use of

content area literacy strategies and +esponse to *ntervention. )ac# :assidy, a former president of *+,, is the associate dean and director of the :enter for 4ducational 'evelopment, 4valuation, and +esearch at Te/as ,H. 1niversity=:orpus :hristi. 4van 3rtlie& is an assistant professor at the same institution. )ennifer 2hettel is an assistant professor at .illersville 1niversity in Aennsylvania. Iuestions

Whats Hot:

he ma!ing of the list

By Jack Cassidy, Evan Ortlieb, and Jennifer Shettel -bo#t the s#rvey ;ifteen years ago, the original authors of What s !ot," )ac# :assidy and )udith <. Wenrich, did not envision that the list would &ecome a yearly event. They had no idea that What s !ot" would &ecome a &u%%word among reading professionals. ,nd they certainly never anticipated that this wor# would &e replicated &y individual states and even other countries. The annual list has &een cited in countless &oo# chapters, >ournal articles, and conference presentations. *t has &een translated into 2panish and has &een summari%ed and highlighted in newspapers such as 4ducation Wee# and online literacy newsletters such as ;lorida 3nline +eading Arofessional 'evelopment. *t is also mentioned on independent &logs such as Eiteracy 2olutions and +eading +oc#ets. Eonger discussions on topics from the list have appeared in >ournals and &oo# chapters, including two this year, one of which will loo# at the fluctuation of hot" and not hot" topics spanning the last 1$ years. Constr#ctin. the s#rvey 4ach year, since 1JJ-, the 2$ literacy leaders who responded to the list of topics the previous year are sent that year s list and as#ed to ma#e modifications, additions, and deletions. ;or the 2010 survey, 21 of the 200J leaders provided suggestions for additions, modifications, and deletions. +espondents are selected &ased on a num&er of criteria: The first and most important criterion is that they must have a national or international perspective on literacy. Thus, we often select those who serve on the &oards of prominent literacy organi%ations or as editors of ma>or >ournals in the field. +espondents come from various geographical areas in the 1nited 2tates, from :anada, and from outside @orth ,merica. The percentage of *+, mem&ers in a given area determines the num&er of literacy leaders we interview from that area. 'ifferent >o& categories are represented 5such as teachers, college professors, and administrators6, and the respondents are ethnically diverse. !owever, the main criterion for inclusion is that a literacy leader has #nowledge of trends and issues at the national or international level. /eaders 0#eried 'uring the months of ,pril through 2eptem&er, 2$ literacy leaders are interviewed either in person or &y phone. ,ll are read a standard 18C=word paragraph defining hot" and not hot." *t is also e/plained to respondents that their ratings of hot" and not hot" do not necessarily reflect their personal interest, or lac# thereof, in a given topic. +ather, the ratings refer to the level of attention that a given topic is currently receiving. ,fter hearing the introductory paragraph, each respondent is as#ed to rate a given topic as hot" or not hot." 4ach respondent is then as#ed if the topic should &e hot" or should not &e hot." !owever, even the reasons for the should &e hot" and should not &e hot" responses are varied. 2ometimes respondents will say a topic should &e hot" not &ecause they are advocates of the practice &ut &ecause they &elieve more research needs to &e done on that topic. The purpose of the survey has always &een to acDuaint readers with those issues that are receiving attention, thus perhaps encouraging them to investigate these topics in more depth. We also hope that the discrepancies &etween the hot" list and the what should &e hot" list will encourage our readers to &e more active advocates for the &est literacy practices in their own schools and political arenas. ,lso, educators can ta#e advantage of the attention focused on some of these issues and ma#e

needed changes in their schools. )ac# :assidy, a former president of *+,, is the associate dean and director of the :enter for 4ducational 'evelopment, 4valuation, and +esearch at Te/as ,H. 1niversity=:orpus :hristi. 4van 3rtlie& is an assistant professor at the same institution. )ennifer 2hettel is an assistant professor at .illersville 1niversity in Aennsylvania. Iuestions or comments a&out this survey can &e directed to >ac#.cassidyGtamucc.edu.

"enmar! feels the heat# too

*n 'enmar#, the @ational :entre for +eading and The ,ssociation of Teachers of 'anish have conducted a similar survey, as#ing 2$ respondents what they thin# is hot" and what they thin# should &e hot" in reading education0and to e/plain it in their own words. The 'anish survey shows that the hottest topics in 2010 are reading tests, reading comprehension, and content-area reading. @e/t on the list are writing and reading in the #indergarten class, the role of literacy coaches, and reading difficulties, followed &y reading and information technology and reading motivation. The complete study is availa&le at www.videnomlaesning.d#(KCC(10C$.asp/.

Survey respondents
Aarticipants in this year s survey were Richard Allington, 1niversity of TennesseeF "onna Alvermann, 1niversity of ?eorgiaF $athryn H% Au, 2chool +ise *nc., !awaiiF homas &ean, 1niversity of @evada, Eas LegasF Heather &ell, +ose&an# 2chool, @ew MealandF "avid &loome, 3hio 2tate 1niversityF $aren &romley, 7inghamton 1niversity, 21@N, @ew Nor#F William '% &ro(o, ?eorge .ason 1niversity, LirginiaF Robert )ooter, 7ellarmine 1niversity, <entuc#yF *atricia A% +d,ards, .ichigan 2tate 1niversityF -oyce Hinman, 7ismarc# 2chools, @orth 'a#otaF -ames .% Hoffman, 1niversity of Te/asF /ori -amison, Toronto, :anadaF &arbara $apinus, @ational 4ducation ,ssociation, Washington, ':F "onald -% /eu, 1niversity of :onnecticutF 0arsha /e,is, 'uplin 2chools, @orth :arolinaF *% "avid *earson, 1niversity of :alifornia at 7er#eleyF affy Raphael, 1niversity of *llinois, :hicagoF imothy Rasins!i, <ent 2tate 1niversity, 3hioF "% Ray Reut(el, 1tah 2tate 1niversityF .ictoria -% Ris!o, Lander&ilt 1niversity, TennesseeF 0isty Sailors, 1niversity of Te/as-2an ,ntonioF imothy Shanahan, 1niversity of *llinois, :hicagoF "orothy Stric!land, +utgers 1niversity, @ew )erseyF and /inda 1oung, !ans !err 4lementary 2chool, Aennsylvania.

WhatOs hot for 2011 5'ecem&er 2010()anuary 20116. Reading Today, 28(K6, 1, -, 8, C.