How Reading First, Response to Intervention, and Common Core Policies Conceptualize Individual Differences in Reading

• In Event: Reconceptualizing Individual Differences in Reading

Abstract

The literature on individual differences in reading addresses cognitive skills and strategies but pays less attention to the broader forces, including policy, that contribute to the construction of individual differences. To broaden our view on the political and social construction of individual difference, I interrogate the messages within contemporary reading policy. This poster explores the aims and ideas of reading policy in order to advance our understanding of the relationship between institutional forces and the construction of individual differences. I compare how three waves of reading reform—Reading First (RF), Response to Intervention (RtI), and Common Core State Standards (CCSS)—construct individual difference.
First, I briefly review the recent history of U.S. education policy. Second, I analyze policy documents to surface how these policies conceptualize reading and individual difference. Specifically, to illustrate how institutional forces shape the conceptualization of reading and individual difference, I martial evidence from policy documents from two large states: California and New York. I treat the policy documents as sources of data on the ways in which reading and individual differences are defined. The policy documents from three reading reforms showcase differences in how policymakers and reformers define the problem of reading instruction and construct various solutions. Throughout, I argue that education policy plays a vital role in the construction of students’ individual difference in reading.
Education reforms are situated in a particular sociocultural and historical context. The political environment influences the tenor of debates around improving U.S. schools, the research privileged and martialed by policymakers and reformers, and, ultimately, the education bills passed at the state and federal levels. These bills, in turn, influence reading instruction and the conceptualization and construction of students’ individual differences in reading.
This poster explains how two institutional logics, Accountability First and Just Read, and their associated instructional initiatives are reflected in three waves of reading reform. The Accountability First logic emphasizes instruction in alignment with the demands of state standards and testing to meet externally developed goals and raise student achievement. In contrast, the Just Read logic encourages instruction that uses authentic literature to instill a love of reading. Just Read treats reading instruction as an interactive, or constructivist, process to develop children’s lifelong love of books, reading, and learning. The Just Read logic concentrates on the needs of individual students and the role of books, as authentic literature, as a tool for instruction.
My findings have critical implications for policy, practice, and research. I argue that policies could conceptualize individual differences in reading in an alternative way and could more explicitly address issues of individual difference. Reading policies could include strands that conceptualize students with individual differences plus appropriate and effective ways to engage those students to further their development as readers. By explicitly addressing issues of individual difference, policies would send clearer messages to reformers, administrators, and teachers. These messages could support decision-making around the selection of instructional materials and professional development, potentially steering teachers’ classroom practice and benefitting students.

Author

• Sarah L. Woulfin, University of Connecticut