Moving Beyond Compliance - Promoting Research-based Professional Discretion in the Implementation...

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYState- and local-level mandates arecurrently being implemented to ensurestrict compliance to the new nationalCommon Core State Standards forEnglish Language Arts (CCSS forELA) and related assessments. Thesestandards provide many potentialopportunities to improve literacyeducation nationally and locally.However, the CCSS for ELA will likelyface several implementation problems.Their content does not always comportwith what research reveals about gradelevel progressions, text complexity,close reading, writing, and new medialiteracies. Such issues can result in gapsbetween research-based instructionalpractices and what teachers actually doin the classroom. Moreover, there areserious concerns about linking CCSSfor ELA assessments with high-stakestesting because this may result inteaching that reflects narrowunderstandings of reading and writing.The CCSS for ELA also might limit thescope for educators to exercise

professional judgment, which is criticalfor strong implementation in theclassroom.

To better inform policies related to theCCSS for ELA, particularly in Illinois,we conducted a comprehensive reviewof research, policies, and practices, andcreated recommendations for enhancingliteracy education across K-12schooling in light of the CCSS. Thisbrief delineates recommendations forstate and local policy makers topromote the use of research-basedprofessional discretion by teachers andadministrators to improve instruction inthe implementation of the CCSS forELA, and outlines the development ofan Illinois Literacy Research Agenda.The findings indicate needed policyactions in five areas:

curriculum and instruction•teacher education and•professional developmentprogram/school leadership•assessment•research•

INTRODUCTIONFor decades a “reading crisis” hasbeen declared in America.1 Onstandardized tests, gaps inperformance have persisted betweenWhite and non-White students andacross states. For example, on the2013 National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP2):

Only 35% of the nation’s•fourth graders read at or aboveproficient levels, up from 34%in 2011 and 29% in 1992.Whereas 46% of White and•51% of Asian/Pacific Islander

Moving Beyond Compliance: PromotingResearch-based Professional Discretion in theImplementation of the Common Core StateStandards in English Language ArtsBy Rebecca Woodard, University of Illinois at Chicago Sonia Kline, Illinois State University

http://ruepi.uic.edu

about the authors

rebecca woodard isan AssistantProfessor in theDepartment ofCurriculum and Instruction in the

College of Education at theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago.

sonia Kline is anAssistant Professor ofElementary Educationin the School ofTeaching & Learningat Illinois State University.

policy BRIEFUIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

Vol. 4, Book 2

National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1983).1National Assessment of Educational Progress. Data retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.2

Policy Brief 1RV.qxp_Layout 1 4/13/15 4:52 PM Page 2

National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1983).1National Assessment of Educational Progress. Data retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.2National Commission on Writing in America’s Colleges and Schools, The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution (New York: The College Entrance Examination Board,32003).U.S. Department of Education, A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).4College Entrance Examination Board, Writing: A Ticket to Work . . . Or a Ticket Out: A Survey of Business Leaders (New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 2004).5Deborah Brandt, “Literacy Learning and Economic Change.” Harvard Educational Review 69, no. 4 (1999): 373-395.6

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative

policy BRIEF

2

students scored Proficient onreading, only 18% of Blackand 20% of Hispanic studentsdid.

Although writing has received lessattention than reading, similartrends exist in writing, particularlyin high stakes testing environments.3

Such outcomes in reading andwriting clearly highlight inequalitiesin literacy teaching and learning forstudents across the country. Thedevelopers of the CCSS for ELA,the Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers (CCSO) and the NationalGovernors Association (NGA),identified a number of problemswith then-current state standards,assessments, and accountabilitysystems that in part drove suchinequalities in reading and writingoutcomes:

“State standards and•assessments generally do notreflect the knowledge andskills needed for studentsuccess in college and careers; Low standards and inadequate•academic preparation of highschool graduates results inhigh costs for individuals andthe nation;The rigor of standards and•assessments varies widelyfrom state to state; and, Under the accountability•system introduced by NCLB,many states have lowered theirstandards.”4

The CCCS for ELA provide many

potential opportunities to addressthese problems. They are a nationaleffort to unify disparate learningexpectations and outcomes acrossstates. Moreover, the CCSS for ELAare focused particularly on problemsof career and college readinessbecause increasingly technical andliterate demands are being placed onour workforce, and reading andwriting abilities have become a“marker of high-skill, high-wage,professional work.”5 As educationresearcher Deborah Brandt claims inher research linking literate andeconomic development, “More andmore people are now beingexpected to accomplish more andmore things with reading andwriting.”6 In short, the CCSS forELA are intended to providerigorous, benchmarked, andresearch-based outcomes for studentlearning across the U.S.

Despite the importance of the goalsand potential of CCSS for ELA,there are several problems they willlikely face. The substance of theCCSS for ELA do not alwayscomport with what research revealsabout grade level progressions, textcomplexity, close reading, writing,and new media literacies. Suchissues can result in gaps betweenresearch-based instructionalpractices and what teachers actuallydo in the classroom. In addition tothese content-based disconnects,there are serious concerns aboutlinking CCSS for ELA assessmentswith high-stakes testing practicesbecause this may result in teaching

...although theccss for elaprovideconsiderable scopefor educators toexerciseprofessionaljudgment withinlocal situations...this freedom may belost within theimplementationprocess.


Common Core State Standards

policy BRIEF

3http://ruepi.uic.edu

that reflects narrow understandingsof reading and writing. Moreover,although the CCSS for ELA provideconsiderable scope for educators toexercise professional judgmentwithin local situations—a significantfeature of positive school reformefforts7—a freedom that may be lostwithin the implementation process.

Accordingly, we conducted acomprehensive review of research,policies, and practices, and createdrecommendations for enhancingliteracy education across K-12schooling in light of the CCSS forELA. This brief delineatesrecommendations for state and localpolicy makers to promote the use ofresearch-based professionaldiscretion by teachers andadministrators to improveinstruction in the implementation ofthe CCSS for ELA, and outlines thedevelopment of an Illinois LiteracyResearch Agenda. The findingsindicate needed policy actions infive areas:

curriculum and instruction•teacher education and•professional developmentprogram/school leadership•assessment•research•

CONTENT ANDORGANIZATION OF THEENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTSSTANDARDSWhat does a vision of college andcareer readiness look like forEnglish Language Arts outcomes?The K-5 and 6-12 CCSS for ELAare organized into integrated strandsfocusing on reading, writing,speaking/listening, and language.They advocate for aninterdisciplinary approach to literacyinstruction as “shared responsibilitywithin the school,” as well as for anincreased focus on reading andwriting complex information texts.The CCSS for ELA acknowledgethat “although the standards aredivided into Reading, Writing,Speaking and Listening, andLanguage strands for conceptualclarity, the processes ofcommunication are closelyconnected.” The CCSS for ELA alsohighlight cross-disciplinaryexpectations for literacy through theinclusion of standards for Literacy inHistory/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. The CCSSfor ELA outline a vision thatstudents read more informationaltexts and write more persuasivepieces as they progress through thegrades:

Suzanne M. Wilson and Jennifer Berne, “Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of Professional Knowledge: An Examination of Research on Contemporary Professional7Development.” Review of Research in Education, 24 (1999): 173-209.

although many ofthe goals of theccss for ela alignwith currentresearch, some ofthem either makeassumptionswithout a strongresearch base tosupport them or arenot explicit enoughabout the researchbase. as a result,the ccss for elamay beimplemented innegative orunintended ways.



policy BRIEF

4

Based on these expectations, andtaking into account the former statestandards, professionalorganizations, states and districtshave identified multiple“instructional shifts,” or changesthat will need to occur in ELAcurriculum and instruction, in orderto support the new content and ideasin the CCSS for ELA. Particularexamples of these identifiedinstructional shifts can be seen onthe following table:

Commonalities across theseidentified “instructional shifts” forliteracy include the expectations thatstudents: (a) go from reading “justright” texts in a variety of genres intheir ELA classes to reading more

complex nonfiction andinformational texts across contentareas, and (b) move from doing verylittle writing to extensive writinggrounded in textual evidence. Amajor professional organization inlanguage and literacy studies, theInternational Literacy Association(LRA), supports the notion that“The Common Core State Standardsfor English Language Arts representqualitatively different outcomes andtheir accomplishment will requiresignificant shifts in educational

practices involving teachers acrossthe curriculum.”12

Intentionally, the CCSS for ELA donot define how teachers shouldteach, nor do they describe all that

can or should be taught. Theyinstead advocate, “Teachersare...free to provide students withwhatever tools and knowledge theirprofessional judgment andexperience identify as most helpfulfor meeting the goals set out in theStandards.” This stance to “focus onthe results rather than the means” issupported by research underscoringthe efficacy of school reform thatcenters on bottom-up teacher-drivenapproaches.13

CCSS FOR ELA ANDEDUCATIONAL RESEARCHAlthough many of the goals ofthe CCSS for ELA align withcurrent research, some of thespecific standards either makeassumptions without a strongresearch base to support them orare not explicit enough about theresearch base. As a result, theCCSS for ELA may beimplemented in negative orunintended ways.

Lack of research. Issues relatingto the CCSS and associatedassessments have been widelydiscussed in professional andpublic contexts. However,

limited research focused on theCCSS for ELA has been conducted.Much extant research addresses thepublic’s and other stakeholders’perceptions of the CCSS14 anddescribes content comparisons of

Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey, Common Core English Language Arts in a PLC at Work, Grades 3-5 (Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press and International Reading8Association, 2013).National Council for Teachers of English, Resources for Student-Centered Instruction in a Time of Common Core Standards: Support for the Key Instructional Shifts (December92013). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/standards/common-core.Illinois State Board of Education, Fact Sheet: Illinois Schools Implement New English Language Arts Standards (January 2013). Retrieved from10http://www.isbe.net/common_core/pdf/ccs-fact-sheet-ela-1113.doc.Chicago Public Schools, CPS Literacy Content Framework 2.0 (June 2013). Retrieved from http://cps.edu/commoncore/Documents/LiteracyContentFramework.pdf.11International Reading Association, Literacy Implementation Guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards (Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2012).12Retrieved from www.reading.org/ccssguidelines.Suzanne M. Wilson and Jennifer Berne, “Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of Professional Knowledge: An Examination of Research on Contemporary Professional13Development.”Achieve, Growing Awareness, Growing Support: Teacher and Voter Understanding of the Common Core State Standards and Assessment (Washington, D.C.: Achieve, 2012).14Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/growingawarenessCCSS.



policy BRIEF


CCSS with other state, professional,or international standards.15 Themajority of these studies considerthe CCSS more generally, includingboth English Language Arts andMathematics, and many additionalstudies focus exclusively onMathematics.16 Similarly, studies

examining implementation of theCCSS have not systematicallyaddressed English Language Artsteaching and learning; rather, theycenter on issues such as how statesand cities are supportingimplementation17 and the cost ofimplementation.18 Although some

studies have investigated the issueof text complexity,19 there is a needfor research to address other issuesrelating to literacy and CCSS,particularly related toimplementation (discussed in moredetail below).

Potential instructionalimplementation gaps. Becausean overarching analysis of theresearch base for the CCSS forELA does not yet exist,20 wehave identified five potentialinstructional “implementationgaps” that highlight areaswhere the standards as writtenmay encourage a gap betweenresearch and practice.Although the spirit of theCCSS for ELA tends to alignwith literacy research, theparticulars warrant attention,especially in the ways they aretaken up in instruction. Inother words, without explicitknowledge of the research inthese areas, they will likelyprove to be especiallyconfusing or difficult toteachers and administrators toeffectively implement.

Gap 1 relates to grade levelprogressions. Research showsthat literacy learning develops

Andrew Porter, Jennifer McMaken, Jun Hwang, and Rui Yang, “Common Core Standards: The New US Intended Curriculum.” Educational Researcher 40, no. 3 (2011): 103-116.15Michigan State University, Implementing the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics: A Comparison of Current District Content in 41 States (Lansing, MI: Michigan State16University, 2013). Retrieved from http://education.msu.edu/epc/publications/documents/WP32ImplementingtheCommonCoreStateStandardsrevised.pdf.Southern Regional Education Board, State Implementation of Common Core State Standards: Summary Report (Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board, 2014). Retrieved17from http://www.sreb.org/page/1600/benchmarking_ccss.html.Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Future Shock: Early Common Core Implementation Lessons from Ohio. (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2012). Retrieved from18http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/future-shock-early-common-core-lessons-from-Ohioimplementers.htmlGary L. Williamson, Jill Fitzgerald, and A. Jackson Stenner, “The Common Core State Standards’ Quantitative Text Complexity Trajectory: Figuring Out How Much Complexity Is19Enough.” Educational Researcher 42, no. 2 (2013): 59-69.David Pearson gives a preliminary analysis in “Research Foundations for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts.” In Susan B. Newmann and Linda B. Gambrell20(Eds.), Quality Reading Instruction in the Age of Common Core State Standards (Newark, DE: International Literacy Association, 2013): 237-261.Shirley Brice Heath, Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Brian Street, "What’s “New” in21New Literacy Studies? Critical Approaches to Literacy in Theory and Practice." Current Issues in Comparative Education 5, no. 2 (2003): 77-91.Michael T. Moore and Don Zancanella, “Close Reading and Text Complexity: What Every Teacher Should Know.” Talking Points, 25, no. 2 (2014): 2-6.22Louise M. Rosenblatt, The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (Carbondale, IL: SIU Press, 1994).23Charles Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).24Colin Lankshear and Michele Knobel, New Literacies: Changing Knowledge in the Classroom (New York: McGraw-Hill International, 2006).25



policy BRIEF

6

for each individual over time andacross contexts; however, the CCSSfor ELA make assumptions aboutdevelopmental differences anddecisions related to topics addressedat each grade by relying onprofessional consensus rather thanempirical research.26

Gap 2 relates to text complexity.Teachers often match texts toreaders to find the appropriate levelof challenge for each individual thatallows him/her to learn in his/herappropriate “zone of proximaldevelopment.” This pervasivepedagogical practice has strongopponents and proponents inliteracy research. The CCSS forELA offer a different perspective—they cite the gap between readingcompetence at the end of highschool and beginning college asrationale for increasing the levels oftext complexity all studentsencounter in K-12. However,limited research exists on howreaders can effectively engage withcomplex texts.27 It remains to beseen, then, if this call for providingall readers with complex texts willbe supported by instructionalresearch.

Gap 3 focuses on close reading.Research shows that knowledge andmeaning are created in interactionsbetween readers and texts, but theCCSS for ELA emphasize howclose reading helps readers locateknowledge, evidence, and meaningwithin a text.

Gap 4 relates to the CCSS forwriting. Although there arecountless purposes for writingdependent on different contexts,audiences, and genres, the Standardshighlight three primarycommunicative purposes ofwriting—to persuade, to inform, andto convey experience.

Gap 5 focuses on new medialiteracies. The CCSS for ELA givecursory attention to digital readingand writing, stressing that studentsneed to be able to synthesize andapply information from print anddigital sources. However, researchon new media literacies documentsthe need for students to have thenoted competencies and social andliteracy skills necessary for onlinereading and writing.28 Such a needhas been addressed in states likeMinnesota, which has added newstandards for media literacy thatrequire students to “understand,analyze, evaluate, and use differenttypes of print, digital, andmultimodal media; evaluate theaural, visual, and written images andother special effects used in massmedia for their ability to inform,persuade, and entertain; andexamine the intersections andconflicts between visual (e.g., mediaimages, painting, film, graphic arts)and verbal messages.”29

Each of these gaps highlightspotential implementationchallenges. The InternationalLiteracy Association (ILA) provides

implementation guidelines fornumerous other “issues [from theCCSS for ELA] that have proven tobe especially confusing orchallenging to implement,”including the: use of challengingtexts, embedded foundational skillsfor grades K-2, lack of focus on howto teach comprehension effectively,ways vocabulary is embeddedacross the strands, shift to writing tolearn about information, need forincreased collaboration to teachdisciplinary literacy, and challengesof meeting the needs of diverselearners to reach equal outcomes.30

The gaps also showcase a need forthe CCSS for ELA to address social,cultural, and political factors inliteracy more explicitly in particularstandards.

POTENTIALIMPLEMENTATIONCHALLENGESIn addition to the content-baseddisconnects between the CCSS forELA and educational research, theCCSS for ELA face additionalpotential challenges uponimplementation:

Linking of the CCSS for ELA to highstakes testing. Policies at thenational and state levels have linkedthe CCSS for ELA to high stakestests. However, there is evidencethat accountability policies that tietesting scores to high stakesdecisions such as schoolperformance designation, statefunding, teacher evaluation, andstudent advancement/graduation

David P. Pearson. “Research Foundations for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts.”26Elfrieda H. Heibert and Anne E. Mesmer, “Upping the Ante of Text Complexity in the Common Core State Standards: Examining its Potential Impact on Young Readers.”27Educational Researcher 41, no. 1 (2013): 44-51.Peter Afflerbach, Byeong-Young Cho, Jong-Yun Kim, and Summer Clark, “Classroom Assessment of Literacy.” In Dominic Wyse, Richard Andrews, and James Hoffman (Eds.),28The Routledge International Handbook Series (New York: Routledge, 2010): 401.Richard Beach and Frank W. Baker, “Why Core Standards Must Embrace Media Literacy.” Education Week 36, (June 21, 2011): 30.29International Reading Association, Literacy Implementation Guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards (Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2012).30Retrieved from www.reading.org/ccssguidelines.



policy BRIEF


sometimes have negativeconsequences for student learning31

and teachers’ professionaldiscretion. For example, literacyresearch on No Child Left Behindfound that curriculum andinstruction often reflect narrowunderstandings of reading andwriting in high stakes environmentsthat promote “teaching to the test.”Policies in these environments oftenmandate curricular and instructionalcompliance that restricts teachers’professional discretion and does notexemplify research-based languageand literacy teaching. Researchfurther suggests that suchaccountability policies are morelikely to restrict the kinds of literateactivity available to students whoare identified as “different” in termsof categories such as race, culture,language, disability, and low-income.32 This accumulated researchand the fact that there has been littleresearch on the tests designed bytwo state consortia (SmarterBalanced Assessment Consortium,or SBAC, and the Partnership forAssessment of Readiness forCollege and Careers, or PARCC)have led numerous nationaleducational organizations, includingthe IRA, the American Federation ofTeachers, the National EducationAssociation, the NationalAssociation of Elementary SchoolPrincipals, and the NationalAssociation of Secondary SchoolPrincipals to issue statementssupporting the CCSS but alsoadvocating for delayed high-stakes

assessments.33

Concerns about limiting teachers’professional judgment to conductinstruction. Although the CCSS forELA provide considerable scope foreducators to exercise professionaljudgment within local situations—asignificant feature of many positiveschool reform efforts34—thisfreedom may be lost within theimplementation process. Forinstance, districts may removeteachers from planning processesand mandate CCSS-aligned scriptedmaterials that detail particularinstructional methods. However,early CCSS implementationresearch found that when teachersdeveloped their own materials ratherthan using materials developed bypublishers, they had greater buy-into the CCSS.35 Moreover, educatorswho possess situational informationabout their students are positionedto use it in their curriculum andinstruction to positively influencestudent learning.36 Without thecapacity to employ such situationalknowledge and professionaldiscretion in the development andimplementation of materials, lessonsand assessment, teachers mayengage with the CCSS for ELAideally tailoring their instruction tothe students they actually teach.Unfortunately, many policies existthat require teachers to mindlesslyimplement “standards-aligned”curricula that neither adequatelycover the standards nor exhibitresearch-based understandings of

ELA. Ideally, if more teachers andadministrators have deep knowledgeof literacy research, they cancritique such curriculum and leadschool-based literacy learninginquiries. The ultimate focus, then,should be on increasing students’literacy learning and teachers’knowledge of literacy researchrather than compliance in and ofitself.

A potential orientation to the CCSSfor ELA as a static document.Although the CCSS for ELA areintended to be a living work that isrevised as new and better evidenceemerges, it is possible that they willbe approached as a static, all-knowing document that requirescompliance. This is problematicbecause particular standards havealready been identified by numerousprofessional organizations,researchers, and educators asconfusing, misaligned with research,or particularly challenging toimplement. With no processesdetailed for how or when the CCSSfor ELA will be changed over time,concerns that they will not beapproached as a “living document”seem valid. Indeed, the CCSS forELA are new, and as detailed above,there are some portions that couldbe rewritten or elaborated on tobetter reflect research. As such,engaging in a cycle of continuousimprovement of the CCSS for ELAis a critical piece of itsimplementation.

Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able To Do (DeKalb, IN: John Wiley & Sons, 2007).31Caitlin M. Dooley and Lori C. Assaf, “Contexts Matter: Two Teachers’ Language Arts Instruction in this High-Stakes Era.” Journal of Literacy Research 41, no. 3 (2009): 354-391.32Learning First Alliance, Open Letter to Education Stakeholders (June 6, 2013). Retrieved from www.reading.org/learningfirst33Suzanne M. Wilson and Jennifer Berne, “Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of Professional Knowledge: An Examination of Research on Contemporary Professional34Development.”Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Common Core in the Districts: An Early Look at Early Implementers (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2014). Retrieved from35http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/future-shock-early-common-core-lessons-from-Ohioimplementers.html.http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/future-shock-early-common-core-lessons-from-Ohioimplementers.html.Luis C. Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, and Norma Gonzalez, “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.” Theory into36Practice 31, no. 2 (1992): 132-141.



policy BRIEF

8

In response to the potentialopportunities and challenges entailedby the CCSS for ELA, the nextsection turns to needed policy actionsfocused on research-based literacyteaching and learning.

RECOMMENDATIONSFOR POLICY ACTIONTo support literacy teaching andlearning through the implementationof the CCSS for ELA, theoverarching recommendation is asfollows:

Promote the use of research-basedprofessional discretion by teachersand administrators to improveinstruction in the implementation ofthe CCSS for ELA.

The findings of this review indicateneeded policy actions related to theimplementation of the CCSS for ELAin the following areas: (1) curriculumand instruction, (2) teacher educationand professional development, (3)program/school leadership, (4)assessment, and (5) research.

Action 1: Examine and developcurricular materials thatdemonstrate research-basedliteracy teaching and learning, andsupport teachers’instructional decision-making in curricularimplementation.

Within the context of anaggressive push forcompliance to CCSS,there is a danger thateducational leaders willfocus on CCSS coveragewhen making resource

and instructional decisions. This willbe a lost opportunity for engagingand effective literacy teaching andlearning. Instead, student learningshould remain the guiding principle.The process of implementing theCCSS for ELA should be used as anoccasion for curricular andinstructional reform that enhancesstudent learning. This reform shouldnot involve “throwing out the babywith the bath water.” Instead, itshould build on existing materialsand practices that support research-based literacy teaching and learning.

1.1 Examine curricular materialsbefore making decisions aboutresource investments. A thoroughreview of existing and potentialcurricular materials is needed beforeinvestment decisions are made.School literacy curricula often makeuse of a range of materials such asbasal reader programs, workbooks,literature anthologies, novels andother texts (informational, digital,etc.). In agreement with research-based literacy teaching and learning,the CCSS for ELA advocate forliteracy instruction centered aroundhigh quality texts.37 Consequently,resource investments should centeron ensuring that teachers and

Nell K. Duke and P. David Pearson, “Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension.” In Alan E. Farstrup37and S. Jay Samuels (Eds.), What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction 3 (Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation, 2002): 205-242.

the ultimate focus,then, should be onincreasing students’literacy learning andteachers’knowledge ofliteracy researchrather thancompliance in andof itself.

Action 1 includes the followingrecommendations:1.1 Examine curricular materials before makingdecisions about resource investments. 1.2 Develop curricular materials that promote theintegrated nature of literacy. 1.3 Ensure that teachers are supported in usingtheir professional judgment on instructionalmethods that best meet student needs.



policy BRIEF


Sarah J. McCarthey, “The Impact of no Child Left Behind on Teachers’ Writing Instruction.” Written Communication 25, no. 4 (2008): 462-505.38David P. Pearson, “Research Foundations for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts.”39David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, “Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and Literacy, Grades 3–12.” Authors Plan Lessons, and40Implement Assessments (2012). Retrieved from http://www.Nciea.org/publications/cognitiverigorpaper_KH11.pdf.Morgan S. Polikoff, How Well Aligned are Textbooks to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics (2014). Retrieved from http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~polikoff/textbooks.pdf.41What Works Clearinghouse can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Topic.aspx?sid=8.42Melanie Sperling, “Revisiting the Writing-Speaking Connection: Challenges for Research on Writing and Writing Instruction.” Review of Educational Research 66, no. 1 (1996):4353-86.P. David Pearson, Elizabeth Moje, and Cynthia Greenleaf, “Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other.” Science 328, no. 5977 (2010): 459-463.44

students have access to a wide rangeof high quality textual materials. Aparticular concern, given that theCCSS for ELA aim to promoteeducational equity, is that somestudents will have access to a widerange of high quality texts, whileother students will be limited tomandated scripted literacyprograms.38 Furthermore, althoughthere has been a proliferation ofmaterials marketed as CommonCore aligned, caution should beexercised when purchasing thesematerials. According to literacyresearcher David Pearson,39 thepublishers’ guidelines for the CCSSin ELA40 are less comprehensiveand more prescriptive than theCCSS for ELA; consequently, manypublished materials may neglectimportant aspects of the CCSS forELA, in particular, the importanceof local decision-making and thesocial-cultural nature of learning. Inaddition, researchers have yet toverify the degree of alignment ofpublished reading/language artsinstructional materials to the CCSSfor ELA (a recent study ofmathematics textbooks marketed asCCSS-aligned found only modestalignment to the standards41). And,as has historically been the casewith respect to published basalreader programs for elementaryschool-aged children, there is noresearch evidence meeting WhatWorks Clearinghouse standardsindicating that any of them areeffective in promoting studentlearning.42 Given the research base

on the importance of access toquality texts and lack of research onCCSS-aligned materials, resourceinvestments should primarily bemade in high quality texts, withprepackaged programs as secondarysupplements.

1.2 Develop curricular materialsthat promote the integratednature of literacy. Researchconsistently indicates the integratednature of literacy among reading,writing, speaking, and listening43

across subject areas.44 Although theintroductory section of the CCSS forELA speaks specifically about theintegrated nature of literacy, theorganization of the CCSS for ELAinto reading, writing, speaking andlistening, and language may lead tothe components of literacy beingtaught as isolated elements. TheCCSS for ELA acknowledge thatteachers and curriculum developersplay a critical role in the design andeffective implementation ofcurricular materials; it is criticallyimportant,therefore they begiven time andsupport to plancollaborativelyand to createexemplary unitsof study thathighlight theintegrated natureof literacy.

1.3 Ensure that teachers aresupported in using theirprofessional judgment oninstructional methods that bestmeet student needs. The CCSS forELA are not a curriculum, and theydo not dictate instructional methodsto educators. Instead, the CCSS forELA establish goals, and teachersand schools are meant to figure outhow to accomplish them. It iscritical that state and school leadersrecognize that there is not one wayto implement CCSS for ELA andthat teachers be fully supported andenabled to remain responsive toparticular school and classroomsituations.

Action 2: Provide professionallearning that equips teachers toimplement research-based literacyinstruction.

Although the CCSS for ELArepresent a major shift in K-12education with “qualitativelydifferent outcomes,” preliminary

Action 2 includes the followingrecommendations:2.1 Support teacher education and accreditation programsthat provide knowledge of the CCSS for ELA andresearch-based understandings of literacy developmentfor teachers across the disciplines. 2.2 Support professional development that providesknowledge of the CCSS for ELA and research-basedunderstandings of literacy development for teachersacross the disciplines.



policy BRIEF

10

research shows that not all educatorsare familiar with the content of theCCSS.45 Accordingly, someprofessional learning needs tosimply focus on familiarizingeducators with the Standards’ goalsand content. More importantly,though, professional learning needsto promote research basedunderstandings of language andliteracy learning, as theseunderstandings are not evident inmuch of school literacy instruction46

and are not necessarily explicitwithin the CCSS for ELA. Suchprofessional learning will alloweducators to use their professionaljudgment to implement thestandards in ways that supportresearch-based understanding ofliteracy. As discussed above, thereare at least five possible researchstandards implementation gaps incontent that warrant particularattention professional learning:grade level progressions, textcomplexity, close reading, writing,and new media. Professionallearning should primarily focus onincreasing research-basedunderstandings of the complex,situated nature of language andliteracy practices that undergird theCCSS for ELA, as well assupporting teachers as they attemptto implement instruction that is bothstandards-aligned and research-based.

2.1 Support teacher education and

accreditation programs thatprovide knowledge of the CCSSfor ELA and research-basedunderstandings of literacydevelopment for teachers acrossthe disciplines. Teacher candidatesleave teacher education programswith variable knowledge about theCCSS for ELA and research-basedunderstandings of literacydevelopment47 at least in partbecause program faculty espousevastly different stances towards theCCSS for ELA. These stances rangefrom ignoring them to aligning theircourses with them. As states beginto encourage standards-alignment ofteacher preparation programs,program administrators and facultyshould: (a) ensure that teachercandidates understand what is and isnot covered in the CCSS for ELA;(b) provide opportunities for teachercandidates to apply the CCSS forELA in planning, instruction, andassessment cycles; (c) increasefaculty collaboration acrossdisciplines on literacy instruction;48

and (d) allot adequate time forliteracy courses that cover the broadrange of literacy topics, includingwriting and digital media literacy,which are often neglected topics inteacher preparation.49

2.2 Support professionaldevelopment that providesknowledge of the CCSS for ELAand research-basedunderstandings of literacy

development for teachers acrossthe disciplines. As with teachereducation, professional developmentcan increase teacher collaborationacross disciplines on literacyinstruction, and allot adequate timefor literacy courses that cover thebroad range of literacy topics,including writing and digital medialiteracy. Furthermore, professionaldevelopment might provide concreteexamples of CCSS-alignedinstruction, and time for commonplanning. Because professionaldevelopment is most effective insmall, collaborative learningcommunities that function on along-term basis rather than as oneshot sessions,50 schooladministrators should structure timeand space for on-going inquiry inprofessional learning communities.States, districts, schools, and highereducation institutions should alsooffer fiscal and human capital thatwill enable teachers to engage insuch work.

Action 3: Build leadershipcapacity to implement research-based literacy programs.

Effective leadership, which involvessetting directions, developingpeople, and understanding context,plays an essential role inimplementing educational reforminitiatives that result in improvedstudent learning.51 Leaders whopromote a shared sense of purpose

John Supovitz, Ryan Fink, and Bobbi Newman, From the Inside In: An Examination of Common Core Knowledge and Communication in Schools (Consortium for Policy Research45in Education, 2014). Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/fromtheinsidein.Arthur N. Applebee and Judith A. Langer. The State of Writing Instruction in America’s Schools: What Existing Data Tell Us (Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and46Achievement, 2006).Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, Preparing for the Common Core: Using Performance Assessment Tasks for Professional Development (San Francisco, CA: WestEd,472013). Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/resources/preparing-for-the-common-core-using-performance-assessmentstasks-for-professional-development/.Timothy Shanahan and Cynthia Shanahan, “Teaching Disciplinary Literacy to Adolescents: Rethinking Content-Area Literacy.” Harvard Educational Review 78, no. 1 (2008): 40-4859.Pam Grossman, Karen Hammerness, and Morva McDonald. “Redefining Teaching, Reimagining Teacher Education.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 15, no. 249(2009): 273-289.Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey, Common Core English Language Arts in a PLC at Work, Grades 6-8.50Kenneth Leithwood, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom, How Leadership Influences Student Learning (Learning from Leadership Project, 2004).51


around a meaningful set of goals aremost likely to motivate others toact.52 Leaders at multiple levels (e.g.state, university, district, school,classroom, community), then, mustlook beyond enforcing complianceand instead should be prepared toinnovate and collaborate to promotea vision of standards-based reformcentered on improving literacyteaching and learning.

3.1 Strengthen formal andinformal partnerships amongstate, universities, districts,schools, and communities tocollaborate around standards-and research-based literacyinitiatives. Although many

individuals, groups, and institutionsshare the common goal of working

to improve students’ literacylearning, this work often occurs inisolated pockets with limitedcommunication within and amonggroups. Building and strengtheningpartnerships and collaborationsamong those who share thiscommon goal, - including states,universities, districts, schools andcommunities - is imperative. TheNational Writing Project, forexample, has been couplinguniversity-based professionaldevelopment for teacher leaderswith subsequent in-servicedevelopment led by teacher leadersin schools for over thirty years.53

The Institute for the Study ofLiterature, Literacy, and Culture at

TempleUniversityoffers “analliance ofuniversity,public school,andcommunityeducators.”54

Somepartnershipshave centeredtheir literacyinitiatives onstandards-based work.Through theStandards-Based Change(SBC) Process

Developmental Model of SchoolChange, for example, university

faculty guide “a school’sadministrators and faculty to cometogether as a school-wideprofessional learning community,with the purpose of developing astaircase of coherent literacycurriculum.”55 Capitalizing onexisting literacy collaborations ofthis nature or creating new ones,with a goal of standards-basedliteracy learning in mind, isimportant in the development ofliteracy leaders.

3.2 Ensure that preparationprograms and professionaldevelopment for school leadersfoster leader knowledge, skills,and dispositions aligned withcurrent language and literacyresearch. Professional learning forschool leaders should develop theirknowledge of the reading andwriting practices that undergird thegoals of the CCSS for ELA. Thisfoundational knowledge will helpadministrators navigate amongmultiple recommendations from thestate, district, and professionalorganizations. For example,different “instructional shifts” forELA instruction have beenidentified by states, districts, and themajor literacy professionalorganizations (see table p.4). Whenleaders couple their knowledge ofliteracy research and instructionalshifts with understanding of thelocal context within which theyoperate, they are in a strong positionto promote meaningful goals thatwill benefit student learning.56

policy BRIEF

Common Core State Standardshttp://ruepi.uic.edu 11

Action 3 includes the followingrecommendations:3.1 Strengthen formal partnerships among state,universities, districts, schools, and communities tocollaborate around standards- and research-basedliteracy initiatives.3.2 Ensure that preparation programs and professionaldevelopment for school leaders foster leader knowledge,skills, and dispositions aligned with current languageand literacy research.3.3 Implement policies that foster school leaders’ skillsin instructional and organizational leadership,organizational leadership, policy, and adult learningrelated to literacy education.3.4 Partner with families and communities to implementresearch-based literacy programs.

Edwin A. Locke, Gary P. Latham, and Miriam Erez, “The Determinants of Goal Commitment.” Academy of Management Review 13, no. 1 (1988): 23-39.52Hilda Borko, “Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.” Educational Researcher 33, no. 8 (2004): 3-15.53Steve Parks and Eli Goldblatt, “Writing Beyond the Curriculum: Fostering New Collaborations in Literacy.” College English 62, no. 5 (2000): 584-606.54Taffy E. Raphael, Kathryn H. Au, and Susan R. Goldman. “Whole School Instructional Improvement through the Standards-Based Change Process,” In J. Hoffman and Y.55Goodman (Eds.), Changing Literacies for Changing Times (New York: Routledge, 2009): 198-229.Kenneth Leithwood, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Wahlstrom, How Leadership Influences Student Learning.56


UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative12

3.3 Implement policies that fosterschool leaders’ skills ininstructional leadership,organizational leadership, policy,and adult learning related toliteracy education. State agencybudgets should be developed withadequate resources to delivertechnical assistance, research anddisseminate best practices, and offerincentives that spur local innovation.There should be clear communicationbetween the state, districts, andschools about the vision for theCCSS. For example, administratorsshould also support teachers’professional learning about literacyby providing time for commonplanning and professional inquiry. Asdescribed in Action 4, leaders mustdevelop capacity for formativeassessment that improves instruction,and they must develop capacity fordigital assessments. State leadersshould ensure that sufficientinfrastructure for monitoring andsupporting formative assessments isin place. For example, investing inlongitudinal data systems willsupport data-informed continuousimprovement and accountability.

3.4 Partner with families andcommunities to implementresearch-based literacy programs.Given the extensive researchindicating the significant impact thatfamilies and communities can haveon student achievement,57

educational leaders must involvefamilies and communities in theimplementation of research-basedliteracy programs that align withCCSS for ELA. Leaders can, for

instance, work with largercommunity groups and sharecommunity resources; includeparents and community members indecision-making processes; andfacilitate effective two-waycommunication between home andschool to ensure commonunderstandings about what we wantchildren to learn and how we knowchildren are learning.58 Thesecommon understandings areparticularly important when manydistricts are making significantchanges to common practices, suchas moving from letter grades tostandards-based grading. In addition,school leaders and communitypartners should work together toensure that educators are aware ofcultural and linguistic differenceswithin communities and that thesedifferences are treated as assets ratherthan deficits in schools and the widercommunity.59

Action 4: Delay high-stakesaccountability measures, anddevelop capacity for formativeassessments that improveinstruction.

The drive to rapidly implementCCSS has been accompanied by asimilarly rapid move to design andimplement CCSS assessments, whichis not necessarily in the best interestof educators and students. The CCSSassessment consortia (PARCC forIllinois) are charged with developinghigh quality assessments thatmeasure the full range of CommonCore State Standards. They areresponsible for creating summative

it is critical thatstate and schoolleaders recognizethat there is not oneway to implementccss for ela andthat teachers befully supported andenabled to remainresponsive toparticular schooland classroomsituations.

policy BRIEF

Robert J. Marzano, What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action (Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2003).57Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker. Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work58(Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 2008).Gloria Ladson-Billings, “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research59Journal 32, no. 3 (1995): 465-491.



policyBRIEF

http://ruepi.uic.edu

assessments for reporting purposesand formative assessments forinforming teachers’ instructionaldecisions. As assessments tend todrive instruction,60 theseassessments will likely play apowerful role in shaping how theCCSS for ELA are implemented inschools. Despite the critical natureof these assessments, limitedresearch on them has beenconducted. Summative assessmentsin particular have been used foraccountability purposes, forexample, funding, teacherpromotion, etc. Field testing for thePARCC summative assessments

took place in spring 2014, but themajority of schools have not had theopportunity to trial tests, whichmight allow school leaders toidentify and resolve potentialproblems of implementation.Neither have the results of thesefield tests been reported publicly (asof fall 2014). Field-testing for theformative assessments has not yettaken place, and these assessmentsare not expected to be availableuntil the 2015-16 school year.

4.1 Delay high-stakes summativeassessments and accountabilitymeasures. Because so little iscurrently known about the CCSS forELA assessments, it is highlyproblematic to link theseassessments to high-stakesaccountability measures that maynegatively impact students,teachers, and schools. Cautionshould be used in issuing sanctionsbased on assessment results,particularly in the case of schooldistricts with predominantly non-dominant populations—thoseidentified within schools as differentin terms of categories such as race,

culture, language, disability,and low-income. Researchfocused on No Child LeftBehind policies indicated thatthese populations were mostoften negatively impacted byhigh stakes policies, in effect,hurting the populations thatthese policies were designedto help.61 It is important thatthis pattern is not repeatedwith CCSS assessments. The

recommendation of delaying high-stakes assessments andaccountability measures also alignswith recommendations from severalliteracy professional organizations,including the Learning FirstAlliance (AFT, NEA, NAES,NASP) and the IRA. While somestates applied for and have beengranted flexibility in implementingcertain high-stakes provisions,many other states, including Illinois,have put in place high-stakesmeasures in the first year ofimplementation despite a lack ofknowledge about the tests and their

potential impact.

4.2 Implement formativeassessments that improveinstruction. The assessmentconsortia have prioritized thedevelopment of summativeassessments—assessments thatmeasure student learning forreporting purposes—over formativeassessments, assessments thatinform teacher instruction for thepurpose of student learning. Thisprioritization is problematic, asformative assessments have beenshown to have a powerful effect onstudent learning.62 In contrast, thereis evidence that summativeassessments do not support effectiveteaching and student learning.63 It ishoped that the formativeassessments provided by theassessment consortia will providevaluable information to guideinstruction, but this information willnot be enough. It is important thateducators make assessment anintegral part of instruction. Just aseducators need time to developcurricular materials that align withresearch-based literacy practices,educators also need time to developassessments that align with theseinstructional materials, as well astime to interpret assessments toinform instruction.

4.3 Develop capacity foradministering digital assessments.Schools face a number of challengesas they prepare to administer thenew digital assessments: ensuringthat enough fully operationaldevices are available so that allstudents have one-to-one access for

policy BRIEF

13

Action 4 includes the followingrecommendations:4.1 Delay high-stakes summativeassessments and accountability measures.4.2 Implement formative assessments thatimprove instruction. 4.3 Develop capacity for administeringdigital assessments.

George Hillocks, The Testing Trap: How State Writing Assessments Control Learning (New York: Teachers College Press, 2002).60Ronald W. Solórzano, “High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and Remedies for English Language Learners.” Review of Educational Research 78, no. 2 (2008): 260-329.61Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam, “Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (Formerly: Journal of Personnel62Evaluation in Education) 21, no. 1 (2009): 5-31.Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and be Able To Do.63


policy BRIEFthe time allotted for tests, ensuringthat sufficient bandwidth isavailable for the online tests, andensuring that staff and students areconfident using digital equipmentfor testing.64 An additional concern

is that a school’s digital equipmentwill be tied up for test training andtaking purposes and that, as aconsequence, schools will neglectother valuable instructional uses oftechnology, such as forcollaboration and digitalcomposition. Given thesechallenges, educational leaders mustwork to develop capacity foradministering digital assessments, aswell as ensuring that digitalequipment is used in a broad rangeof ways to support literacy learning.

Action 5: Collaborate in andsupport the development ofneeded research on literacy andthe Common Core StateStandards.

Policy and practice alike can andshould be informed by research.Research is useful for instrumental

purposes, conceptual insight, andpolitical strategies. Collaborating onresearch and evaluation projects alsooffers policymakers andpractitioners insights into the logicof research, which may ultimately

inform their own work in newand useful ways.65

While perceptions of theCCSS and associatedassessments have been widelydebated, limited research onthe CCSS for ELA, inparticular, has beenconducted. Because we havesuch limited understand ofhow CCSS impact studentlearning, this research is

essential. We recommend (a) thedevelopment of a coherent researchagenda, beginning with theidentification of shared goals, aswell as policy supports for thisresearch agenda through (b) keystrategies, and (c) the provision ofhuman capital and fundingresources.

5.1 Engage with researchers inIllinois, nationally, andinternationally to develop acoherent literacy research agenda,with specific attention toimplementation of the CCSS forELA. Current Illinois policies forliteracy and the CCSS primarilyfocus on accountability andassessment, rather than sharedresearch goals. We recommend thedevelopment of an Illinois LiteracyResearch Agenda (ILRA) thatidentifies and prioritizes topics and

issues related to effective literacyteaching and learning, includingimplementing the CCSS for ELA. Acoordinated research agenda will:allow students, families, educators,researchers, and policymakers toexpress their primary concerns andinterests; guide researchers to focustheir efforts in key areas; andsupport strategic policy making.Although the goals of this agendashould be determined collectivelywith the input of multiplestakeholders, from the researchperspective represented in this briefwe recommend the need forresearch investigating how theCCSS for ELA influence literacyteaching and learning in Illinois andnationally. For example, valuableresearch might include:examining “Common Core-aligned”literacy curricula and materials,including both those commerciallyproduced and those developedwithin schools; investigating the grade levelprogressions of the CCSS for ELA,so that these progressions may berefined and improved in accordancewith evidence of student learning; exploring how the integrated natureof literacy (among reading, writing,speaking, and listening; acrossdisciplines; and within socialpractice) is advanced or neglected,as the CCSS for ELA document isbrought to life in classrooms; and analyzing the nature of CCSS-aligned summative and formativeassessments for ELA and theirimpact on teaching and learningacross multiple contexts.

UIC Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative14

Action 5 includes the followingrecommendations:5.1 Engage with researchers in Illinois,nationally, and internationally to develop acoherent literacy research agenda, withspecific attention to implementation of theCCSS for ELA. 5.2 Develop a system for providingadequate resources for the Illinois LiteracyResearch Agenda.

Center on Education Policy, Year 3 of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: State Education Agencies’ Views on the Federal Role (Washington, D.C.: Center on64Education Policy, 2013). Retrieved from http://cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=420.Sandra M. Nutley, Isabel Walter, and Huw T. O. Davies, Using Evidence: How Research Can Inform Public Services (Bristol, UK: 2007).65Information about the Illinois Literacy Research Council can be found at http://www.siue.edu/ierc/.66


policy BRIEF

Common Core State Standardshttp://ruepi.uic.edu

5.2 Develop a system forproviding adequate resources forthe Illinois Literacy ResearchAgenda. Who should beresponsible for organizing andcarrying out the Illinois LiteracyResearch Agenda, and who shouldbe involved? Our recommendationis to bring together a task force tocreate and implement the IllinoisLiteracy Research Agenda. InIllinois, the Illinois EducationResearch Council (IERC)66—“thelegislated research arm of theIllinois P-20 council”—could guidethe development of the ILRA. Atthe table, we suggest representationfrom key educational, professional,and legislative organizationsincluding: ISBE, the IllinoisReading Council (IRC), literacyresearchers and teacher educatorsfrom state colleges and universities,district leaders and EnglishLanguage Arts specialists, state-level education policy makers, andrepresentatives from foundations.We also suggest that this task forcelook carefully at recommendationsand research from leading literacyprofessional organizations, such asthe International ReadingAssociation, the Literacy ResearchAssociation, and National Councilfor Teachers of English. Strategiesthe task force should particularlyconsider to move toward the goalsspecified under 5.1 include: (a)developing consensus around ashared vision, and (b) identifyinghuman capital and fiscal supportsneeded to implement thiscoordinated research. Finally,funding to build policy- andpractice-relevant research capacityis clearly needed. Within the ILRAtask force, state-level educationpolicymakers and representatives offoundations, in particular, should

lead the exploration of ways to fundthe research agenda.

CONCLUSIONBecause standards andaccountability contexts change overtime, implementing policies thatsupport research-based literacyteaching and learning is moreimportant than seeking merecompliance to the currentparticulars of the CCSS for ELA.This notion is aligned with theunderstanding that the CCSS forELA is a “living document” thatregularly evolves with new researchand knowledge. To stay true to thisvision, though, the processes forcontinually iterating the CCSS forELA based on current research needto be clearly outlined andpublicized.

In this document, we haverecognized the potentialopportunities of the CCSS for ELA,while also attending to likelyimplementation challenges,identifying both policy andlocalized efforts that we believewill support implementation of theCCSS for ELA in Illinois. Inparticular, we want to reiterate theimportance of promoting educators’use of research-based professionaljudgment and employing formativeassessments that support literacyteaching and learning rather thanfocusing primarily on summative,high-stakes assessments. Movingforward, it is our hope thatcollaborative preK-20 effortsthrough the Illinois LiteracyResearch Agenda will coordinateand support research that positivelyimpacts literacy teaching andlearning, with attention to theCCSS for ELA as one importantcomponent.

when leaderscouple theirknowledge ofliteracy researchand instructionalshifts withunderstanding ofthe local contextwithin which theyoperate, they are ina strong position topromote meaningfulgoals that willbenefit studentlearning.

15


about usThe Research on Urban Education Policy Initiative (RUEPI) is an education policy research project based in the Universityof Illinois at Chicago College of Education. RUEPI was created in response to one of the most significant problemsfacing urban education policy: dialogue about urban education policy consistently fails to reflect what we know and whatwe do not about the problems education policies are aimed at remedying. Instead of being polemic and groundedprimarily in ideology, public conversations about education should be constructive and informed by the best availableevidence.

The UIC Center for Literacy is a public service and research center that works to improve literacy education, policy andresearch at the local, state and national levels. We provide leadership and technical assistance to Chicago area schoolsand community- based organizations for the purpose of enhancing the quality of literacy services. We also work withpublic and private entities to formulate policies that support effective literacy programs. The Center responds to issues inliteracy education by serving as a public clearinghouse for literacy information; establishing partnerships with universitydepartments and external agencies; contributing to enhanced graduate education for future leaders in literacy education;and creating innovative, research-based programs that serve as exemplary models for public practice. Our activities areespecially focused on helping to reduce literacy as a barrier to full societal participation for all individuals.

our MissionRUEPI’s work is aimed at fostering more informed dialogue and decision-making about education policy in Chicago andother urban areas. To achieve this, we engage in research and analysis on major policy issues facing these areas,including early childhood education, inclusion, testing, STEM education, and teacher workforce policy. We offer timelyanalysis and recommendations that are grounded in the best available evidence.

our approachGiven RUEPI’s mission, the project’s work is rooted in three guiding principles. While these principles are not grounded inany particular political ideology and do not specify any particular course of action, they lay a foundation for ensuring thatdebates about urban education policy are framed by an understanding of how education policies have fared in the past.The principles are as follows:

• Education policies should be coherent and strategic

• Education policies should directly engage with what happens in schools and classrooms

• Education policies should account for local context

RUEPI policy briefs are rooted in these principles, written by faculty in the University of Illinois at Chicago College ofEducation and other affiliated parties, and go through a rigorous peer-review process.

contact [email protected]@uic.edu

1040 West Harrison StreetChicago, Illinois 60607


policy BRIEF

http://ruepi.uic.edu 16

The development and publication of this brief was supported by the University of Illinois College of Education and Centerfor Literacy.

learn more at http://ruepi.uic.edu and http://cfl.uic.edu


Moving Beyond Compliance - Promoting Research-based Professional Discretion in the Implementation...

Documents

Transcript of Moving Beyond Compliance - Promoting Research-based Professional Discretion in the Implementation...