The National Governors Association (NGA), founded in 1908, is the instrument through whichthe nation’s governors collectively influence the development and implementation of nationalpolicy and apply creative leadership to state issues. Its members are the governors of the 50 states,three territories and two commonwealths.

The NGA Center for Best Practices is the nation’s only dedicated consulting firm for governorsand their key policy staff. The Center’s mission is to develop and implement innovative solutionsto public policy challenges. Through the staff of the Center, governors and their policy advisorscan:

b quickly learn about what works, what doesn’t, and what lessons can be learned from othergovernors grappling with the same problems;

b obtain assistance in designing and implementing new programs or in making current pro-grams more effective;

b receive up-to-date, comprehensive information about what is happening in other state capi-tals and in Washington, D.C., so governors are aware of cutting edge policies; and

b learn about emerging national trends and their implications for states, so governors can pre-pare to meet future demands.

For more information about NGA and the Center for Best Practices, please visit www.nga.org.

Copyright ©2005 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. All rights reserved.ISBN 1-55877-400-9

ContentsAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

1. Why Focus on Adolescent Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2. Why Adolescent Literacy Is Hard to Define and Address 5

What is Adolescent Literacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Who Are the Struggling Adolescent Readers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

What Are the Challenges to Improving Adolescent Literacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

3. What Governors and States Can Do to Improve Adolescent Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Strategy 1: Build Support for a State Focus on Adolescent Literacy . . . . . . . . . .12

Strategy 2: Raise Literacy Expectations Across Grades and Curricula . . . . . . . . .15

Strategy 3: Encourage and Support School and District Literacy Plans . . . . . . . .16

Strategy 4: Build Educators’ Capacity to Provide Adolescent Literacy Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Strategy 5: Measure Progress in Adolescent Literacy at the School, District, and State Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Appendix A: Resources on Adolescent Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Appendix B: Examples of Promising Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Appendix C: Contacts for More Information on Promising Practices . . . . . . . .35

Appendix D: Potential Funding Sources for Adolescent Literacy . . . . . . . . . . .37

i

Reading toAchieve:

A Governor’s Guide to Adolescent Literacy

ii

Reading to Achieve: AGovernor ’s Gu ide t oAdolescent Li teracy

was written by Ilene Berman, program director

in the education division at the National

Governors Association (NGA) Center for

Best Practices, and Gina Biancarosa, doctoral

student at Harvard University’s Graduate

School of Education. Jeff Green, executive

writer in the NGA office of communications

provided editorial assistance. Bridget Curran,

senior policy analyst in the education divi-

sion, Dane Linn, director of the education

division, and John Thomasian, director of the

NGA Center for Best Practices, offered valu-

able advice and guidance. Lily Clark and

Justin Stone, interns in the NGA Center for

Best Practices education division, provided

important research and assistance. yz

iii

The NGA Center for Best Practices’ Adolescent LiteracyAdvisory Panel helped frame the key messages of theguide and offered suggestions of examples and research toinclude in the document during two panel meetings heldin Washington, D.C. Panel members also provided con-structive feedback on multiple drafts. The authors aregrateful for this assistance. The following individualsserved as members of the panel: Diane August, seniorresearch scientist, Center for Applied Linguistics; GinaBiancarosa, doctoral student, Harvard UniversityGraduate School of Education; Dionne Blue, programofficer, KnowledgeWorks Foundation; Gene Bottoms,senior vice president, Southern Regional EducationBoard; Betsy Brand, director, American Youth PolicyForum; Don Deshler, professor of special education anddirector of the Center for Research on Learning, TheUniversity of Kansas; Susan Frost, president, EducationPriorities; Ted Hasselbring, William T. Bryan professorand endowed chair in special education technology,University of Kentucky; Andrés Henríquez, program offi-cer, Carnegie Corporation of New York; Nancy Hoffman,vice president, Jobs for the Future; Michael L. Kamil,professor of education, psychological studies in educa-tion, learning, design, and technology, StanfordUniversity; Jennifer Sloan McCombs, policy analyst,RAND; James McPartland, professor of sociology anddirector of the Center for Social Organization of Schools,Johns Hopkins University; Renee Murray, schoolimprovement consultant, Southern Regional EducationBoard; Mary Laura Openshaw, director, Just Read,Florida!; Tom Payzant, superintendent, Boston PublicSchools; Mel Riddile, principal, J.E.B. Stuart HighSchool (Fairfax, Virginia); Ruth Schoenbach, co-direc-tor, Strategic Literacy Initiative; Catherine Snow, HenryLee Shattuck professor of education, Harvard GraduateSchool of Education; and Dorothy Strickland, SamuelDeWitt Proctor chair, Rutgers University GraduateSchool of Education.

The authors also thank the many individuals who sharedtheir promising practices during the development of thisdocument, whose names and contact information are list-ed in Appendix C. In addition to the many governors’advisors who offered valuable information, the followingorganizations and individuals provided useful informa-tion and/or reviewed the draft manuscript: RosaAronson, director, Office of Advocacy and StrategicAlliances, National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals; Beth Ann Bryan, senior education advisor,Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Vinita Chhabra,research scientist, National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development; Kathryn M. Doherty, special assis-tant, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education,U.S. Department of Education; Mariana Haynes, directorof research, National Association of State Boards ofEducation; Rafael Heller, senior policy associate,Alliance for Excellent Education; Barb Kapinus, seniorpolicy analyst, National Education Association; PeggyMcCardle, acting chief, Child Development andBehavior Branch, Center for Research for Mothers andChildren, National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment; Rebecca Moak, education research ana-lyst, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S.Department of Education; Cynthia Harlow Sadler, vicepresident, external relations, Alliance for ExcellentEducation; and Susan Sclafani, assistant secretary, Officeof Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department ofEducation.

The authors would like to extend special thanks to SusanFrost and Andrés Henríquez for their valuable insightsand contributions. Susan Frost served as a cofacilitatorfor advisory panel meetings and helped conceptualize theguide. Carnegie Corporation of New York generouslysupported the development and publication of this guide.yz

Ack

now

ledg

emen

ts

iv

1

To compete in the global information economy, young people today need literacy skills far more advanced than have been required of any previous generation. Strong reading, writing, and thinking skills are essential not onlyfor success in school and the workplace, but also for participation in civic life.Yet many youth lack the requisite literacy skills. Only three out of 10 U.S.eighth-graders are proficient readers.1

Poor readers in elementary and middle school are likely to struggle in highschool and are most at risk of dropping out before graduation. Even many high school graduates are unprepared to meet the literacy expectations of theirprofessors or employers. Opportunities for economic success will increasinglyrequire that young people possess strong literacy skills. Nearly two-thirds ofnew jobs in this decade will require some postsecondary education, and thefastest-growing jobs make the highest literacy and education demands.2

Unfortunately, for too many students, literacy instruction ends in third grade.The nation’s eight million struggling readers who are adolescents3 — definedin this guide as students in grades four through 12 — also need extra support.A state commitment to providing literacy instruction to students from kinder-garten through 12th grade is necessary for governors to meet adequate yearlyprogress targets, raise high school graduation rates, increase the value of thehigh school diploma, and close the achievement gap.

Exe

cutiv

eS

umm

ary

Research and best practices identified by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices’ AdolescentLiteracy Advisory Panel suggest governors pursue five strategies to improve adolescent literacyachievement.1. Build support for a state focus on

adolescent literacy.

A strategic plan to address the literacy needs of the state’smiddle and high school students requires literacy perform-ance data for students, schools, and districts. Such data can beshared through a state literacy report card to raise the issue’sprofile and garner momentum for improving adolescent liter-acy achievement. Other steps governors and states can takeare leading a statewide adolescent literacy campaign, desig-nating a state office or coordinator for adolescent literacy, andestablishing an adolescent literacy advisory panel.

2. Raise literacy expectations acrossgrades and curricula.

To prepare students for success in a rigorous high school cur-riculum, states must make literacy expectations explicitacross grade levels and content areas. This will require assess-ing real-world literacy demands and strengthening state stan-dards, accordingly. Policymakers can help ensure the stan-dards are met by aligning them with curricula, assessments,and professional development activities. The support ofteachers, principals, and district administrators will also beneeded for students to meet the new literacy expectations.Educators must understand the importance of promoting lit-eracy rooted in academic disciplines.

3. Encourage and support school and dis-trict literacy plans.

States should encourage schools and districts to develop best-practices-based literacy plans to ensure students receive effec-tive adolescent literacy instruction. To support this effort,governors and state education departments can guide schoolsand districts on what to include in the literacy plan and pro-vide resources to help them implement it. At a minimum,states should require that struggling readers be identified andprovided interventions tailored to their needs.

4. Build educators’ capacity to provideadolescent literacy instruction.

Governors and states can use several approaches to build edu-cators’ capacity to provide effective adolescent literacyinstruction. They can strengthen teacher licensure andpreparation requirements. They can also offer specialized cer-tification or endorsements in adolescent literacy for content-area teachers, schoolwide professional development in litera-cy instruction, and induction or mentoring programs with aliteracy component. Principals, too, can be offered incentivesto become successful adolescent literacy leaders in theirschools.

5. Measure progress in adolescent literacyat the school, district, and state levels.

Governors will want to measure the effectiveness of theiradolescent literacy initiatives to make modifications, dissem-inate promising practices, and convey positive results. They,along with other policymakers and educators, will need betterdata sources and tools, including assessments and data systemsthat provide real-time and longitudinal student literacy per-formance information.

Governors have an unprecedented opportunity to draw attentionto the adolescent literacy crisis. Knowledge about what works forstruggling adolescent readers is increasing, and new fundingsources for adolescent literacy initiatives are beginning to emerge.By pursuing strategies to improve literacy achievement, governorscan set the stage for a revitalized education system that preparesstudents for the increasing literacy demands of work, education,and civic participation in the 21st century. yz

2

13

why focus onadolescent literacy

4

Neglecting students’ literacy has serious economic conse-quences for individuals and states. Today, almost 40 per-cent of high school graduates lack the reading and writ-

ing skills that employers seek, and almost a third of high schoolgraduates who enroll in college require remediation.4 Deficits inbasic skills cost the nation’s businesses, universities, and under-prepared high school graduates as much as $16 billion annuallyin lost productivity and remedial costs.5

Literacy is a gateway to achievement and opportunity. On aver-age, college graduates earn 70 percent more than their highschool graduate counterparts, while high school dropouts are fourtimes more likely than college graduates to be unemployed.6 Inaddition, regardless of educational attainment, higher levels ofliteracy translate into higher earnings.7 Yet only three out of 10eighth-graders in the United States today meet current standardsfor reading proficiency.8 Poor readers in elementary and middleschool are not on track for success in school and for high schoolgraduation. Failure to achieve certain levels of reading, writing,and critical-thinking skills in high school narrows employmentprospects and limits preparedness for civic participation.

Governors must focus on raising adolescent literacy achievementto afford individuals opportunities to achieve and to maintain theeconomic competitiveness of their state. In the recent past, basicliteracy skills were sufficient to earn a living wage. Nearly two-thirds of new jobs in this decade will require some postsecondaryeducation, and the fastest-growing jobs make the highest literacyand education demands.9 Preparing more students to be success-ful in higher education will yield benefits for states. Students withstrong literacy skills as adolescents can be expected to becomeself-sufficient adults who augment rather than drain state coffers.

The state focus on literacy cannot end in third grade. To meet therequirements of colleges and employers in the 21st century, stu-dents must receive explicit literacy instruction throughout theiradolescent years, defined in this guide as beginning in the fourthgrade and continuing through the end of 12th grade. Governorshave already acknowledged the importance of literacy as a strongfoundation for learning. Many states provide effective literacyprograms to their youngest students. States must now build on thesuccesses of these initiatives in the early years with literacyprograms for middle and high school students.

To meet the proficiency requirements of the No Child Left BehindAct, improve the quality of high schools, and close the achieve-ment gap, governors must help struggling readers catch up, whichis the aim of the federal Striving Readers Initiative. They mustalso help all students reach the higher literacy expectations.

Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s Guide to Adolescent Literacybegins with a brief discussion of adolescent literacy challengesand responses, based on available research and best practicesidentified by the National Governors Association Center for BestPractices’ Adolescent Literacy Advisory Panel. It also includesfive strategies the panel recommends that governors and statespursue to improve adolescent literacy. Finally, appendices to theguide, describe resources for adolescent literacy initiatives, con-tain examples of promising state and local adolescent literacypractices, list contacts for more information on promising prac-tices, and identify potential funding sources for adolescent literacy. yz

25

why adolescent literacyis hard to define and address

6

What Is Adolescent Literacy?

In this guide, the term “adolescent literacy” refers to the set ofskills and abilities that students need in grades four through 12 toread, write, and think about the text materials they encounter.Becoming literate is a developmental and lifelong process, whichin the 21st century includes becoming literate with electronicand multimedia texts as well as conventional written material.Grade four is when students experience a shift in emphasis fromlearning how to read to learning from reading text. America’sadolescents need to be literate not only to succeed in school, but alsoto succeed in life.

Who Are the Struggling Adolescent Readers?

By the time they enter fourth grade, students can struggle withreading for different reasons — poor vocabulary, insufficientbackground knowledge, poor reading strategies, a lack of motiva-tion to read, etc. (see “Barriers to Adolescent Reading Success”).The largest group of struggling adolescent readers experiencessome problems with fluency and comprehension. These studentscan read everyday texts such as newspapers or simple instructionmanuals, but they frequently cannot understand specialized ormore advanced texts. Although many in this group meet state lit-eracy proficiency standards, some are unprepared to meet thehigher literacy demands of today’s colleges and workplaces.

A second group of struggling adolescent readers has more diffi-culty with fluency and comprehension. These students experi-ence consistent problems no matter what they read. They dropout or graduate from high school with limited literacy skills; forexample, they can read a simple news article but cannot compre-hend a novel or technical manual. Many of these readers cannotmeet state literacy proficiency standards and lack the skillsrequired to participate in civic life and secure many jobs.

The smallest group of struggling adolescent readers, no more thanten percent of all students, has the most dire reading deficienciesand cannot decode or read the words on a page.11 These students’problems usually result from serious learning disabilities, insuffi-cient decoding instruction in earlier grades, or a recent andabrupt transition to reading in English.

Among struggling adolescent readers, English Language Learners(ELLs) and economically disadvantaged students face additionalchallenges.12 Increasingly, middle and high school classrooms arefilled with ELLs.13 “Rapid growth at the upper grade levels hasmeant that foreign-born immigrant children now represent a sub-stantially larger share of the total high school population (5.7percent) than they do of the primary school population (3.5 per-cent).”14 For ELLs, reading instruction is even more challenging,because such students are learning the language in which theinstruction is being provided. Not all ELLs have the same needs,however. The extent of an ELL student’s English vocabulary andoral language skills as well as the student’s ability to read andwrite in a first language will determine the degree to which learningEnglish is an additional challenge.

High-poverty schools often have the lowest achievement levelsand tend to be staffed by teachers who are less experienced, lessqualified, and more likely to leave.15 These characteristics make itmuch more likely that students will receive inadequate instruc-tion throughout their school careers. Moreover, economically dis-advantaged students often lack exposure both in and out ofschool to the varied experiences and enhanced vocabulary thatare thought to foster better reading comprehension and writingskills.

The achievement data are particularly troubling for minority stu-dents. Barely half of black and Hispanic ninth-graders completehigh school in four years.16 In addition, the lowest high schoolgraduation rates are concentrated in “majority minority” andurban districts.17 Across the nation, black and Hispanic studentspass state reading assessments and meet National Assessment ofEducational Progress (NAEP) proficiency standards at ratesbetween 10 percentage points and 65 percentage points belowthose of white students. 18

Weak adolescent literacy skills are not just a problem of minori-ties and the urban poor. The average percentage of all studentsmeeting fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP reading proficiencystandards is less than 50 percent in every state.19 Moreover, nation-wide, more than 8 million students in grades four through 12 arestruggling readers.20

“Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write more than at any othertime in human history. They will need advanced levels of literacy to perform their jobs, run their

households, act as citizens, and conduct their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with theflood of information they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed their imagina-

tions so they can create the world of the future. In a complex and sometimes even dangerous world,their ability to read will be crucial. Continual instruction beyond the early grades is needed.”10

— International Reading Association

The adolescent literacy research base, though not as robust as theearly literacy research base, is substantial and growing (seeAppendix A). Researchers have identified the most pressingchallenges for struggling adolescent readers and have begun collecting evidence about approaches that improve middle andhigh school literacy achievement.21 Moreover, federal funding foradolescent literacy is becoming more available (see Appendix D).

What Are the Challenges to ImprovingAdolescent Literacy?

Addressing the nation’s adolescent literacy crisis is no easy task.What the research reveals about who struggles to read and writeafter third grade and what programs and supports can help themis that there is no quick fix and no one-size-fits-all solution. Fewstate education systems require explicit literacy instruction acrosscontent areas or offer extra literacy supports to students who arestruggling the most. Preparing students for the increasing reading,writing, and thinking demands of the 21st century will require anunprecedented state focus on adolescent literacy.

The Diversity of Adolescent Readers Belies a Single ResponseAlthough many states have made strides in raising early literacyachievement, all the literacy skills that students will need cannotbe learned by the end of third grade. Excellent instruction in theearly grades is necessary, but not sufficient, to prevent later liter-acy problems. State policymakers need to understand that a focuson adolescent literacy need not detract from early literacy efforts.Reforms such as Reading First have helped states improve theiryounger students’ achievement, and the strategies this guide sug-gests can help build on this initial state investment.

Students need instruction beyond third grade to learn, for exam-ple, how to employ reading strategies to comprehend complextexts about specialized subject matter. All students need suchinstruction, not just those who are struggling readers and writers.Yet struggling students do require extra help, and it is not neces-sarily a reiteration of early literacy instruction that they need. Asstudents get older, the more potential exists for their falling evenfurther behind and becoming disengaged from learning.Struggling adolescent readers who do not identify themselves asreaders are most likely to be the lowest performing.22

7

Barriers to Adolescent Reading Success

Characteristics of Poor Readers

b Limited oral language proficiencyb Poor decoding skills (i.e., how to

decipher a written word based onknowledge that letters representsounds)

b Poor fluency (i.e., the ability to read quickly, accurately, and withappropriate expression)

b Limited vocabularyb Limited background knowledgeb Limited content-area knowledgeb Poor comprehension strategy

knowledge and use

Some Causes of Reading Problemsin kindergarten through grade three

b Poor decoding instructionb Inadequate opportunities to

develop vocabulary, background, and content knowledge

b Lack of pleasurable and meaningfulreading and writing experiences

b Lack of access to comprehensioninstruction

b Little access to informational texts

Some Causes of Reading Problemsin grades four through 12

b Decreased motivation to readb Inadequate opportunities to

develop vocabulary, background, and content knowledge

b Lack of access to comprehensioninstruction

b Increasing reading and writingdemands across the curriculum

b Reading and writing instruction disconnected from content-area literacy demands

b Reading and writing instruction not seen as province of middle andhigh school instruction

b Lack of widespread support for adolescent literacy

8

Given the different reasons that students struggle with readingafter third grade, interventions must be equally diverse and devel-opmentally appropriate. Recent research has identified factors key tosuccess (see “Elements of Effective Adolescent LiteracyPrograms”). In addition, a review of programmatic approachessuggests that schools use one or more of the following to improveliteracy development for middle and high school students:

b extra-help reading courses for students who can decode mod-erately well but have weak fluency and difficulties with com-prehension;

b a reading course or a series of reading courses designed to pro-vide direct instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, andword attack skills for more severely disabled students;

b instructional practices infused into content instruction toenhance literacy development for all students within aschool; and

b a comprehensive school reform model with a strong literacycomponent.23

Educators and Policymakers Do Not Have Good Data onStudent Literacy Performance

To select the best approach for improving student literacy, teach-ers and school leaders need data on their struggling readers, thereasons these students are struggling, and what approaches can beeffective to address their problems. Many state assessments simplyidentify performance trends across the state or whether or not stu-dents are “good” or “poor” readers. Few states have assessmentrequirements that enable teachers and administrators to quicklydetermine why a student may not have met a state reading profi-ciency benchmark. Even fewer have systems that enable them toquickly access and interpret student data.

Data are needed to ensure accountability, evaluate progress, anddevelop instructional approaches. Accurate and timely data canhelp:b identify the most at-risk populations at the state, district, and

school levels;b profile students with reading difficulties;b pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of individual students per-

forming below proficiency;b provide teachers with continuous feedback to guide their

instructional approaches; andb inform school, district, and state decisions on curricula, inter-

ventions, school structure, and professional development.

State Standards Lack Explicit and Rigorous LiteracyExpectations

Neither existing standards nor current practices ensure that adoles-cents have the literacy tools they need. Poor high school graduationrates and high college remediation rates attest to the fact that evenstudents who are meeting current standards are often ill-prepared forthe literacy demands of the information economy. Colleges andemployers demand sophisticated reading, writing, and thinkingskills. Many of these skills cannot be learned by fourth grade or evenninth grade, but most current state standards and their correspondingcurricula do not specify or even address these higher level expectations.

Teachers and Principals Receive Limited Training inAdolescent Literacy Instruction

Often middle and high school teachers view themselves as content-area specialists.24 They sometimes ignore the problems of theirstruggling readers or compensate for them by giving studentsnotes from a reading assignment or reading a text aloud instead ofhelping students learn to extract information from a text them-selves.25 These teachers do not have the training or knowledge todo more, and they are often frustrated that remediation servicesare less available and less effective for their struggling adolescentstudents than they are for struggling younger readers.26

Historically, reading intervention programs in middle and highschool have been contained in special education programs.27

Teaching and integrating literacy skills in content-area classesrequires middle and high school teachers to take on a new andoften unfamiliar role. They need to know how to provide qualityreading and writing instruction to meet literacy expectations fortheir content area. These teachers also need instructional strategiesto assist struggling adolescent readers.

Professional development for teachers and principals in adoles-cent literacy can take many forms. The research concludes themost effective professional development includes training on:b analyzing student performance data to identify gaps and set

school performance goals;b matching instruction to student needs based on student

assessment data;b promoting collaboration among educators; andb assigning school personnel roles to support literacy improvement.

Effective training of middle and high school content-area teach-ers in literacy instruction must be systemic and sustained andmust be more than a one-time workshop. In addition, middle andhigh school teachers are seen as content specialists, so they oftenreceive limited preservice education on how to teach reading andwriting. yz

9

A report to Carnegie

Corporation of New York,

the Alliance for Excellent

Education’s Reading Next:

A Vision for Action and

Research in Middle and High

School Literacy identifies

elements associated with

improving adolescent literacy

based on the most current

research. A comprehensive

literacy program targeted

to older readers would

include many of the

following elements.

1. Direct, explicit comprehensioninstruction: Instruction makes readingcomprehension strategies explicit to stu-dents through modeling and explanationand gives students ample opportunitiesfor practice.

2. Effective instructional principlesembedded in content: Instruction isembedded and reinforced across contentareas, with attention paid to content-specific texts and tasks.

3. Motivation and self-directed learning:Instruction promotes engagement andself-regulated learning for the develop-ment of motivated and flexible literacyskills.

4. Text-based collaborative learning:Instruction enables students to engage inguided interactions with texts in groupsin order to foster learning of new knowledge.

5. Strategic tutoring: Individualizedinstruction is more intense for strugglingreaders and focuses on instilling inde-pendence.

6. Diverse texts: Students have accessto, and experience with, texts at a varietyof difficulty levels that vary in the styles,genres, topics, and content areas theycover.

7. Intensive writing: Instruction shouldintegrate writing as a vehicle for learningand as a measure of comprehension andlearning across content areas.

8. A technology component:Technology is used to leverage instruc-tional time to provide additional supportand practice for students as well as pre-pare students for the ways different tech-nology alters the reading and writingexperience.

9. Ongoing formative assessment of students: Instruction should be deter-mined by the use of ongoing assessmentof students that helps teachers targetinstruction.

10. Extended time for literacy:Reading and writing instruction takesplace for longer than a single languagearts period and is extended through inte-gration and emphasis across curricula.Extended time may also include addition-al time devoted to literacy instruction,especially for learners more than twograde levels behind.

11. Professional development:Teachers participate in professional devel-opment experiences that are systematic,frequent, long-term, and ongoing toimprove their ability to teach reading andwriting across the curriculum.

12. Ongoing summative assessment ofstudents and programs: Student progressis monitored and tracked over the longterm.

13. Teacher teams: Infrastructure sup-ports teachers working in small, interdis-ciplinary teams to allow for collaborationand more consistent and coordinatedinstruction and professional development.

14. Leadership: Principals and admin-istrators participate in professional devel-opment and foster teachers taking leader-ship roles.

15. A comprehensive and coordinatedliteracy program: Instruction encompass-es all aspects of literacy in ways thatallow all facets of the program to comple-ment one another and is consistent withprofessional development as well as thechosen materials and approaches forlearning.

Elements of Effective Adolescent Literacy Programs

10

3what governors andstates can do to

improve adolescent literacy

11

Few states have developed comprehensive statewide plans foradolescent literacy. Attention to struggling adolescent readers hasbeen paid at the district and school levels, and some of these localadolescent literacy efforts have raised student achievement. Stateleaders would be wise to develop policies and programs that buildon the lessons learned from these promising local efforts, includ-ing those that will be supported through the federal StrivingReaders Initiative. (See Appendix B.)

States are beginning to pay attention to middle and high schoolliteracy both to build on the momentum of their success in rais-ing early literacy achievement and to support their goal ofincreasing high school graduation rates. According to an analysisof state reading assessment results, 20 out of 28 states showfourth-graders improving slightly, but only 16 states showimprovement among middle school students and 11 states amonghigh school students.28 In addition, long-term national trend datashows average reading scores among nine-year-olds improved butlittle or no change in average reading scores for older students.29

Primarily through Title I and the Reading First program, statesand the federal government have invested heavily in raising earlyliteracy performance. Yet these investments are tempered by theweak literacy instruction students encounter in middle and high schools.

In 2001, Florida Governor Jeb Bush made reading a fundamentalpart of his state education agenda. Literacy rates in the state haverisen ever since. The most recent data show that the percentageof third-grade students reading at grade level or better increasedfrom 57 percent in 2001 to 67 percent in 2005. To build on thismomentum, in 2004 Governor Bush proposed — and the Floridalegislature approved — making reading funds a permanent part ofthe public school funding formula in order to extend readingsupport services to middle and high schools.

In recent years, states have begun considering the role adolescentliteracy plays in their efforts to raise graduation rates and redesignhigh schools. Rhode Island, for example, identified literacy asone of three priority areas during its two high school summits in2000. Stakeholders, including parents, educators, policymakers,and business leaders, concluded that improving the state’s highschools would require high school restructuring and personalizationand a focus on literacy proficiency, and graduation. Rhode IslandGovernor Don Carcieri and the state’s department of elementaryand secondary education have since provided a framework forschools and districts to create middle and high school literacyprograms and services that incorporate state assessment, interven-tion, and progress-monitoring requirements.

These and other recent state efforts to improve adolescent liter-acy achievement suggest five policy strategies that governorsand states can pursue:b build support for a state focus on adolescent literacy;b raise literacy expectations across grades and curricula;b encourage and support school and district literacy plans;b increase educators’ capacity to provide adolescent literacy

instruction; andb measure progress in adolescent literacy at the school, district,

and state levels.

Strategy 1: Build Support for a State Focus on Adolescent Literacy

Governors will need to build support for a state focus on adoles-cent literacy. Their actions should be geared toward collectingand sharing information about the problem and ways to addressit. Governors can take steps to increase adolescent literacyachievement by creating a state literacy report card, leading astatewide adolescent literacy campaign, designating a state officeor coordinator for adolescent literacy, and establishing an adolescentliteracy advisory panel.

Create a State Literacy Report Card

To develop a clear vision and strategic plan for addressing adoles-cent literacy, states first need to collect and analyze data on liter-acy-related indicators. The information can be used to determinethe status of district, school, and student literacy performance.

To determine literacy performance, governors can call for a stateliteracy report card for kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12). Astate literacy report card could be a part of or an extension of thestate’s existing report card. It should include multiple indicators(e.g., high school graduation rates and results from state, NAEP,AP, SAT, ACT, and other assessments) with performance trackedover time, whenever possible, and data disaggregated by district,school, and student demographics (see “Information GovernorsNeed In a State Literacy Report Card”). A literacy report cardcan not only inform adolescent literacy efforts, but also middleand high school reform efforts.

12

Chief among the indicators that should be included in the litera-cy report card are current levels of reading achievement, evidenceof adequate yearly progress, high school graduation rates, andpostsecondary remediation rates. Students’ reading and writingabilities may be measured by high school exit exams, state assess-ments, and end-of-course tests. In addition, because a strong rela-tionship exists between literacy achievement and course taking,the report card should note the percentage and performance ofstudents taking college-preparatory classes and college entranceexams.

It is important not to rely on a single performance indicator.Looking solely at reading achievement on state tests, for example,may obscure problems if test results do not correlate well withsuccess in high school and beyond. At the same time, lookingonly at graduation rates will not reveal the extent to which astate’s students have been prepared for the challenges of readingand writing after high school. Postsecondary institutions shouldbe required to report the number of entering students enrolled inremedial courses, how many drop out after their first year of col-lege, and how many ultimately complete their degree. If avail-able, data on state employers’ satisfaction with high school grad-uates’ preparation can be included in the report card.

By listing literacy indicators by district, school, and studentdemographics, these report cards will enable states to determineachievement gaps and identify schools and/or populations thatneed direct immediate and intensive aid. States such as Florida,New Jersey, and Ohio have used such data to target initial assis-tance to their lowest-performing schools or most at-risk popula-tions. Many states, including Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana,Mississippi, New Mexico, and South Carolina, require that stu-dents who perform poorly on the state assessments receive indi-vidual remediation plans that include tailored literacy intervention.

Rhode Island officials have monitored school and district imple-mentation of a regulation requiring schools to provide interven-tions for students reading below grade level. Schools and districtsmust report to the state the number of students performing belowgrade level, the types of interventions employed, the progress ofschoolwide literacy programs, and the number of students withpersonal literacy plans. To the extent possible, such informationshould be tracked longitudinally so annual changes in adolescentliteracy status can be determined.

13

State literacy report cards should includeliteracy proficiency measures, such as stateassessments and results from the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress, andsecondary and postsecondary graduation,dropout, and remediation rates. The reportcard should enable state and local leadersto answer these questions.

How does state literacy performance compare with:

b state performance on NAEP;b national averages on NAEP and state assessments;

andb neighboring or comparable states’ individual NAEP

and state assessment performance?

What is the literacy achievement performance — andare there gaps — in the state for:

b Students of different racial/ethnic groups;b English language learners;b students with learning disabilities;b recent immigrant students;b migrant students;b male and female students;b students receiving free or reduced-price lunches; andb students enrolled in alternative education or voca-

tional/technical education?

Do literacy achievement gaps and overall literacyachievement differ by:

b geographic area;b district;b grade level; and/orb school level?

Are students making progress annually in their literacy achievement?

What are the longitudinal trends in students’ literacyperformance for:

b different cohorts of students; andb single cohorts of students?

Information Governors Need In a State Literacy Report Card

14

Lead a Statewide Adolescent Literacy Campaign

To communicate to the public the importance of focusing on ado-lescent literacy, governors can lead a statewide adolescent litera-cy campaign. Campaign messages should affirm that all studentsneed high levels of literacy achievement in the 21st century andthat the state stands ready to help them reach this goal.Governors will want to engage teachers, principals, and districtadministrators in the campaign. By partnering with businesses,foundations, state agencies, and postsecondary institutions, gov-ernors can raise public awareness of literacy achievement gapsrevealed by the state’s data collection systems. Together, thesepartners can provide much needed resources and technicalassistance.

The Alabama State Department of Education, business commu-nity, and governor have played major roles in the development ofthe Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) to address students’chronic reading difficulties, raising funds to support communica-tions and assistance efforts and securing state funding to extendARI. The A+ Education Foundation, founded as a nonprofitorganization by private-sector business and community leaders in1991 to promote excellence in K-12 education, has been instru-mental in establishing and promoting ARI throughout Alabama(see Appendix B, “1. One State’s Statewide K-12 ReadingInitiative”).

Designate a State Office or Coordinator for AdolescentLiteracy

A designated adolescent literacy office or point person in thestate education agency can coordinate assistance and programs,advocate for the issue, provide information to educators and pol-icymakers, and share information on progress with the governor’soffice. For example, the Ohio Reading Improvement office,housed in the state department of education, facilitates commu-nication with other agency divisions to ensure alignment acrossthe state’s literacy and teacher training activities. The office alsooffers professional development training, provides an online ado-lescent literacy journal, and runs a grant competition to fundresearch-based literacy programs in low-performing secondaryschools.

Establish an Adolescent Literacy Advisory Panel

Governors can establish an advisory panel to inform the develop-ment of their statewide adolescent literacy initiatives. FloridaGovernor Jeb Bush’s statewide reading office — Just Read, Florida!— coordinates the state’s K-12 literacy-related initiatives. Theoffice invited nationally recognized researchers and practitionersto help develop the state’s plan for adolescent literacy improvement.

New Jersey’s commissioner of education formed a Task Force onMiddle Grades Literacy Education to raise the profile of the liter-acy crisis in grades four through eight. Based on state and nation-al data, the task force’s recommendations included establishingan office of middle grades literacy and creating academic councilsto review test result data. Members also suggested instituting pro-fessional development activities for teachers, providing literacycoaches to middle schools, and requiring that half of the 100hours of mandated professional development be devoted to literacy.

Governors will want the membership of this advisory panel toreflect a wide range of stakeholders. Members could includeteachers and principals who have demonstrated success in raisingliteracy achievement as well as representatives from business,community groups, professional organizations, philanthropicorganizations, higher education institutions, and the state depart-ment of education. As it frames its recommendations, the panelcan call on practitioners and researchers with expertise in profes-sional development, literacy interventions, literacy assessments,content-area literacy, student literacy achievement, and theneeds of English language learners.

Governors may choose to form subcommittees on adolescent lit-eracy within existing school improvement task forces in order toprevent redundancies among advisory groups examining relatedissues. Tennessee, for example, included a strand on adolescentliteracy in the Tennessee High School Summit. The strand builton recommendations of the Tennessee Reading Panel, a collabo-ration of school districts, higher education institutions, and theTennessee Department of Education that was convened under theleadership of Governor Phil Bredesen.

15

Strategy 2: Raise Literacy ExpectationsAcross Grades and Curricula

Governors can help accomplish the goal of preparing students tomeet the literacy expectations of employers and postsecondaryinstitutions by assessing real-world demands and raising statestandards, accordingly, and by revising state standards to includeexplicit expectations for literacy instruction across grade levelsand content areas. They will also want to secure the support ofteachers, principals, and district administrators for such initiatives.

Assess Real-World Literacy Demands and Raise StateStandards

Before revising the state standards, policymakers need to reviewthe contributions of several organizations that are working todefine literacy demands for the next generation. The newNational Assessment of Educational Progress, which will beadministered in 2009, will ask students to demonstrate compre-hension skills on items that require thinking about more than onetext at a time, place a heavier emphasis on vocabulary, andinclude a greater percentage of informational text. Moreover, the12th Grade NAEP Commission has recommended changes toincrease the rigor of the NAEP high school standards so theyreflect readiness for postsecondary education, employment training,and entrance into the military.30

The American Diploma Project (ADP) has also been outlininghow the high school curriculum can be changed to help studentsmeet the increased literacy expectations. As part of this work,ADP surveyed many colleges and businesses to identify real-worlddemands. The National Commission on Writing in America’sSchools and Colleges conducted a similar survey with a focus onthe writing skills that employers and postsecondary educatorsexpect of high school graduates. These surveys found that bothbusiness leaders and college presidents expect high school gradu-ates to possess sophisticated literacy skills, such as being able tochoose words well, alter their writing style and voice appropriate-ly, and gather and synthesize relevant information from multiplesources.

The Southern Regional Education Board has produced a series ofguides designed to improve middle school education, and it isdeveloping a similar series, in collaboration with ACT, about col-lege-readiness indicators for high school students.31 The middleschool guides for science, algebra, and English language arts focuson what students need to know to be ready for honors and col-lege-preparatory courses in high school. The English languagearts guide, for example, details “readiness indicators” for writing,language, reading comprehension, speaking, and listening inaddition to providing benchmarks aligned to NAEP to helpteachers determine whether their students demonstrate literacyskills at basic, proficient (grade-level), or advanced levels.

Although national efforts have yielded useful information on theincreased literacy demands of employers and postsecondary insti-tutions, governors may want to conduct some fact-finding of theirown to understand the unique demands that will be required oftheir state’s high school graduates. Governors can consider send-ing out surveys or holding roundtables with the state’s topemployers, industries, military recruiters, and higher educationinstitutions to determine what literacy skills they look for inpotential students or employees.

In Hamilton County Public Schools in Tennessee, for example,the district superintendent led an effort to raise curricular require-ments. The Public Education Fund (PEF) in Chattanooga andthe Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce strongly support-ed the initiative. To make the case for more rigorous standards,district leaders, PEF, and the Chattanooga Area Chamber ofCommerce conducted surveys of local employment requirements.The surveys uncovered the shrinking pool of local jobs requiringonly a high school diploma and substantiated the need to increasestudent achievement.

Real-world literacy demands can be embedded in student per-formance expectations. The state board of education in Oregonestablished new graduation requirements for the class of 2007that require students to apply and demonstrate knowledge andskills related to career and academic expectations. For example,students will have to develop an education plan and profilelinked to their personal and career goals, demonstrate career-related knowledge and skills (e.g., teamwork, communication,and problem solving), and participate in community-connectedlearning experiences. These requirements place an emphasis onstudent performance, reinforcing and helping students developcritical literacy skills.

16

Revise State Standards to Make Literacy ExpectationsExplicit Across Grades and Curricula

In addition to calling for higher standards across content areas tomeet real-world demands, policymakers should ensure the litera-cy expectations within each content area are made explicit. Theyshould require state departments of education to reevaluate theircore content area standards and assessments for explicit literacyknowledge and skills. This type of articulation will enable teach-ers to incorporate literacy more effectively into their dailyinstruction.

More than just English language arts standards will need to beevaluated. Each content area has its own reading and writingknowledge and skills. For example, states may want to developresearch and communication strands in their science standardsthat demonstrate the reading, writing, analysis, and speakingskills that students need for success in a biology course. Achieve,Inc., is identifying literacy skills such as logic and research thatcould be effectively taught in courses representing differentdisciplines.32

Secure the Support of Teachers, Principals, andDistrict Administrators for Adolescent LiteracyInitiatives

To ensure the success of their adolescent literacy work, governorsshould involve teachers, principals, and district administratorsearly on in the process. Middle and high school content-areateachers often resist “literacy across the curriculum” efforts, pri-marily because they typically do not view literacy as their curric-ular concern and because approaches tend to emphasize genericreading strategies.33 It is critical for governors to send the messagethat they are promoting literacy rooted in academic disciplinesand that the new literacy expectations will be based on demandsinherent in the disciplines themselves.

To build support and understanding of making literacy demandsexplicit across content areas, governors may want to conveneeducators for adolescent literacy summits. Summits can convey aclear message to educators about the need to focus on adolescentliteracy and connect teachers and administrators to ongoing pro-fessional development and research-based resources. These sum-mits could include activities designed to help teachers and prin-cipals make the connection between disciplinary literacy and theirown curriculum.

Strategy 3: Encourage and SupportSchool and District Literacy Plans

To ensure schools can provide the instruction necessary to helpstudents master the reading, writing, and thinking demands ofrigorous standards, governors can encourage and provide supportfor schools and districts to develop their own literacy plans. Forthese plans to be coordinated and effective, they must be tied toliteracy performance data, linked to state standards, and alignedwith curricula, assessments, and professional development activi-ties. These plans could also be an extension of schoolwideimprovement plans, so long as an explicit focus on literacy isincorporated. J.E.B. Stuart High School in Virginia is provingthat with strong leadership and a solid and comprehensive litera-cy plan, schools can propel their students to high levels of litera-cy (see Appendix B, “2. One High School’s Successful LiteracyPlan”).

Literacy plans should not only address how to support students sothey can meet the revised standards, but also how to help studentswho find the new standards especially challenging. The literacyplan should be based on real-time school data and draw onresearch-based promising practices for teaching reading and writ-ing skills. It should delineate both instructional approaches (e.g.,curricula, pedagogy, and materials) as well as structural approach-es (e.g., use of time, use of facilities, and assignment of teachers).Furthermore, it should detail how to identify and reach strugglingstudents.

States can provide guidance on what needs to be included in theplan, for example, by distributing a literacy plan template asKentucky has done. Schools and districts may also need trainingon how to develop a literacy plan. Massachusetts is one state thatis providing such training to schools (see Appendix B, “3. StatesEncouraging the Development of District and School LiteracyPlans”). At a minimum, even if schools and districts are notrequired to have a literacy plan, states can require that studentswho perform below proficiency on state reading assessments betargeted for diagnostic reading screening and, if necessary, be pro-vided interventions tailored to their needs.

17

Call for Literacy Plans Based on Effective AdolescentLiteracy Instructional Practices

In developing their literacy plans, schools and districts shoulddraw from research about what methods work well with adoles-cents and how to foster those methods in teachers’ practices inthe long term. Reading Next: A Vision for Action and Research inMiddle and High School Literacy, the Alliance for ExcellentEducation’s report to Carnegie Corporation of New York, identi-fied 15 elements of effective adolescent literacy programs sup-ported by research and practice (see Chapter 2).34 An excellentstarting point for developing a school literacy plan is to provideall students with reading comprehension instruction and embedliteracy instruction in content-area classes. Students who take anadvanced English curriculum and other content-area courses witha heavy emphasis on reading and writing have higher achieve-ment than those who do not.35

The most successful schools will have a flexible, comprehensive,and coordinated approach to teaching their adolescent studentshow to read and write. English language arts teachers, as well asother content-area teachers, must receive explicit professionaldevelopment training that acknowledges their content expertiseand helps them support adolescent literacy. Teachers in schoolsthat “beat the odds” connect real-world contexts and the skills,ideas, and knowledge students learn across classes and grades.36

Critical to the development of a literacy plan is the capacity toanalyze performance data and to use that data to inform planning,practice, and professional development. States may need to assistteachers, principals, and district administrators with these tasksthrough training and other technical assistance resources.

Require Schools and Districts to Provide Interventionsfor Struggling Readers

Even if schools and districts are not required to have a literacyplan, states can require that students who perform below profi-ciency on state reading assessments be targeted for diagnosticreading screening. State assessments now routinely discriminatebetween students scoring above or below designated benchmarkscores. Yet these tests do not reveal why some students are strug-gling. By requiring the screening of failing students, states equipeducators with tools to help them determine why each studentstruggles and select the most appropriate intervention.

States such as Florida, Maine, and Rhode Island have set require-ments to ensure that struggling adolescent readers are identifiedand provided intense, targeted intervention. Florida’s MiddleGrades Reform Act requires that all middle school reading andlanguage arts programs must be proven effective through researchby 2008-09 and that middle schools with 25 percent or more stu-dents reading below grade level must develop specific plans toimprove reading among same-grade cohorts.

To receive Comprehensive School Reform funds, Maine second-ary schools are required to provide remediation and accelerationbased on assessment data and a student’s personal learning plan.Multiple partners, including universities, the regional educationlaboratory, and the state department of education, provide tech-nical assistance to these schools to implement the school reformprovisions and literacy supports. Rhode Island’s regulationsrequire that elementary and secondary school students readingbelow grade level be identified, that interventions be developedfor individual students based on diagnostic assessment data, andthat the progress of each student receiving intervention servicesbe monitored.

Once students’ struggles are better understood, schools canchoose from instructional approaches that best meet the needs ofdifferent groups of struggling readers. Governors should call forscreening students who fail to meet state reading test benchmarksfor the most typical sources of reading problems — word reading,vocabulary, background knowledge, and English language knowl-edge. A full disability diagnostic testing session is neither requirednor is it recommended for all struggling students. However, a briefscreening of some key skills and factors can quickly illuminatewhy a student performed poorly on state assessments. Finally, ifgovernors call for the use of specific screening measures, thesedata can be collected and aggregated to dramatically improveeducators’ and policymakers’ understanding of adolescent literacydeficits and progress across the state.

A successful school or district literacy plan includes strategies foroffering intervention services suited to individual student needs.Several districts have aggressively addressed the need for inter-vention, and many require school or student literacy plans (seeAppendix B, “4. District-Level Approaches to LiteracyInstruction and Intervention for Adolescents”). A substantialresearch base supports various programs that target strugglingadolescent readers, and the U.S. Department of Education isfunding randomized, experimental research to determine whatintervention approaches work for which students.37 In addition,

18

advances in technologyoffer more options forindividualization ofinstruction than everbe fo re . The l i t e racyplan should require subse-quent intervention witha different approach if astudent does not respondto the initial intervention.Intervention efforts mustnot adopt a “one-s i ze-f i t s -a l l ” approach, or theyrisk ineffectiveness.

School literacy plans must also acknowledge the role schoolstructures play in the ability to raise literacy achievement.Especially for middle and high school students who are reading atmore than two years behind grade level, catching up quicklybecomes increasingly important and difficult to accomplish injust a 30- to 45-minute instructional time block. Many of themost effective literacy programs require an extended period forliteracy-related instruction, such as through ninth-grade acade-mies or extended reading blocks.38 To ensure students do not fallbehind in conceptual development, however, extending readingblocks should be linked to content-area learning.

Governors recognize that in addition to providing school-basedsupports, involving parents and communities in student learningis critical, especially for adolescents who are highly influenced bytheir environments. They have also promoted participation inbefore- and after-school programs to raise academic achievement,increase attendance rates, support students’ transition to collegeand the workplace, and contribute to community and school con-nections. High-quality extra learning opportunities can improvestudents’ engagement and success in school-day learning.39

Strategy 4: Build Educators’ CapacitytoProvide Adolescent Literacy Instruction

Governors must work to ensure that current and future educatorscan provide effective adolescent literacy instruction. This willrequire states to strengthen teacher licensure and preparationrequirements, offer specialized certification in adolescent literacy,and afford teachers professional development opportunities inliteracy instruction.

Strengthen Teachers’ Licensure and PreparationRequirements

To build the capacity of educators to teach to literacy-infusedstandards and provide targeted intervention, states will have tostrengthen teacher licensure requirements and preservice trainingsimultaneously. Licensure requirements should guarantee thatteachers who meet them are adequately prepared to teach readingand writing in their content area. This will arm educators withknowledge about how students’ diverse literacy needs can besupported in every class and situation.

Currently, the preparation of middle and high school teacherstypically focuses on their specific content knowledge and peda-gogy. Most teacher preparation programs require only a singlecourse in reading for prospective teachers — a reflection of licen-sure requirements. Revising requirements to include additionalliteracy courses is the most obvious way to address adolescent lit-eracy in teacher preparation. Yet creating new courses should notbe required at the expense of courses that foster critical contentknowledge. Any courses that are added should reflect the mostcurrent research-based understanding of the critical elements ofadolescent literacy instruction.

Idaho and North Carolina, for example, require educators toearn continuing education credits based on the most currentreading research. To be recertified, Idaho Title I, special educa-tion, and K-8 teachers and administrators must take a three-cred-it course called “Idaho Comprehensive Literacy” or pass a readingassessment measure based on the Idaho comprehensive literacyplan. North Carolina state board of education policy requires allK-8 teachers to earn three reading renewal credits every fiveyears.

19

States can also partner with teacher education programs toencourage better preparation of middle and high school teachersto deliver effective adolescent literacy instruction. CarnegieCorporation of New York has begun a preservice adolescent liter-acy initiative in schools of education. The initial grants supportwork at Michigan State University and the University of Kansas,Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL). Michigan StateUniversity’s teacher preparation program aims to help preserviceteachers gain skills for teaching adolescent literacy in contentareas, particularly in math and science. KU-CRL will develop anddisseminate preservice coursework materials for teachers andadministrators based on its staff members’ experience in trainingpreservice university faculty and more than 400 preservice teach-ers since 1987. Additional grantees that will focus on improvingpreservice training in adolescent literacy include ColumbiaUniversity’s Teachers College, the University of Connecticut, theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, University of California SantaCruz, and the University of Michigan.

Offer Teachers Specialized Certification in AdolescentLiteracy

To further build educators’ capacity, states can offer content-areateachers new certification or endorsement options in adolescentliteracy. This will help create a pool of skilled practitioners whounderstand literacy acquisition and instruction and how it relatesto content-area requirements. To ensure the new credentials areattractive to teachers, states can offer pay incentives similar tothe incentives given to teachers working in schools with a highconcentration of low-performing students. Teachers with thesecredentials and specialized knowledge are crucial assets in realiz-ing the state’s adolescent literacy objectives, especially in middleand high schools with high percentages of struggling readers andwriters.

States such as Florida, North Carolina, and Texas have creatednew credentialing options to develop educator capacity in ado-lescent literacy instruction. Florida’s Middle Grades Reform Actbuilds on the success of literacy coaches in the state’s elementaryschools. The act offers $16.7 million in grants to place 282 read-ing coaches in the lowest-performing middle schools. To qualifyas coaches, teachers must have acquired or be working toward aK-12 reading endorsement or K-12 reading certificate. The read-ing endorsement in Florida is essentially a midpoint in the acqui-sition of a reading certificate; the reading certificate requires 30university course credit hours or a master’s degree in reading.

North Carolina’s Certified Trainers of Writing program places atleast one teacher-leader in elementary, middle, and high schoolsin each district. Each has been trained to offer staff developmentthat emphasizes sound writing instruction, standards, and read-ing-writing connections. Texas Master Reading Teachers teachreading and serve as mentors to teachers of reading in eligiblehigh-needs campuses for which they receive a year-end bonus of$5,000. Master teachers are certified to teach K-12 and mustcomplete a master reading teacher preparation program approvedby the state board for educator certification.

As many states have sought to develop credentials for literacycoaches, a collaboration of national professional organizations,including the International Reading Association, NationalCouncil of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers ofMathematics, National Council for the Social Studies, and theNational Science Teachers Association, have responded withstandards for middle and high school literacy coaches.40 Literacycoaches use their advanced knowledge of literacy acquisition tocoach teachers in their schools to improve literacy instructionand to identify and provide struggling students appropriate inter-ventions.

Several models of literacy coaching exist, and governors shouldconsider which model will best serve state and local needs.41 Themodels vary in terms of how much of the coach’s position is dedicated to administrative, instructional, and professionaldevelopment duties. Coaches generally are seen as changeagents, and literacy coaches focus on improving literacyinstruction across the content areas.

Afford Teachers Professional DevelopmentOpportunities in Literacy Instruction

Classroom teachers need access to professional developmentopportunities that will expand their knowledge and ability toaddress their students’ literacy needs. States can support induc-tion and mentoring programs for new teachers, establish demon-stration sites, and provide professional development via coachesor in partnership with professional development organizations.

20

Support Induction and Mentoring Programs with anAdolescent Literacy Component

Nearly half of all teachers leave the classroom within the first fiveyears, and many cite the lack of proper training and support torespond to the varying proficiency levels of their students as thereason for their dissatisfaction.42 Infusing adolescent literacytraining in precertification programs will help curb but not elim-inate the high rates of teacher turnover, particularly in hard-to-staff, low-performing schools.

Governors should encourage the creation of an induction andmentoring program for teachers in their first two years of teach-ing. This program should include an adolescent literacy compo-nent and promote on-site, context-specific assistance for begin-ning educators. The training should be coupled with training inresearch-based instructional strategies to help diverse studentgroups meet rigorous standards (see Appendix B, “7. OneUniversity’s Approach to Developing an Adolescent LiteracyMentor-Based Induction Model”).

Establish Demonstration Sites

State-level professional development assistance can be targetedinitially to districts with a high concentration of adolescentsstruggling with literacy. As schools begin to implement practicesand realize evidence of success, governors can promote theseeffective practices across the state. Schools serving target popula-tions or meeting certain goals successfully can act as demonstra-tion sites of research-based literacy models and interventions.Demonstration site schools can serve as exemplars that teachersand administrators could visit as part of their professional devel-opment. Furthermore, these schools can serve as sites for appren-ticeships and for teacher preparation and specialized certificationprograms. The Alabama Reading Initiative began with literacydemonstration sites that served as models of effective, research-based reading practice (see Appendix B, “1. One State’sStatewide K-12 Reading Initiative”).

Use Specialists, Literacy Coaches, and Master Teachers toProvide Professional Development

New credentialing options would provide a way to deliver profes-sional development and sustained on-site support for schools.Specialists, literacy coaches, and master teachers can act as disci-pline-specific peer leaders, helping to develop a school literacyplan and foster improved instruction among their colleagues.They can conduct nonevaluative observations and provideimmediate, on-site feedback and collegial support to teachers get-ting used to thinking about the literacy demands of their contentareas. In public middle and high schools in Boston,Massachusetts, literacy coaches are the cornerstones of a collabo-rative professional development model in adolescent literacy forcontent-area teachers, subsequently raising their state test passrates by 46 percent (see Appendix B, “5. One District’s Approachto Building Teachers’ Capacity to Improve Adolescent LiteracyAcross the Curriculum”).

Partner with Regional Professional Development Centers andOrganizations to Provide Professional Development

Many state education departments have limited capacity to pro-vide professional development on their own. Governors shouldlook to businesses, universities, national organizations, regionallaboratories and centers, and professional and philanthropicorganizations to help build educators’ capacity. Many states, suchas Delaware, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Virginia, contractwith external assistance providers, such as regional training cen-ters, or offer educators professional development as part of aschool’s adoption of a school improvement model (see AppendixB, “6. State Partnerships to Build Educators’ Capacity inAdolescent Literacy Instruction”).

Support Principal Training in Literacy

Principal leadership is essential for making the structural andinstructional changes needed to raise student achievement. Stateand district leaders must work together to clearly define the roleof school principals and create the conditions that enable themto be successful literacy leaders in their buildings. Principals musthave the authority to make personnel and budgeting decisionswhile being held accountable for students’ literacy achievementlevels.43

State and local leaders can link principal pay to improved out-comes; however, increased pay alone is unlikely to be effective instimulating widespread improvement. Aspiring principals alsoneed high-quality, research-based, school-embedded training inadolescent literacy strategies. School principals participating inthe Alabama Reading Initiative are required to attend three con-tinuous development meetings each academic year and areexpected to participate fully in school-based professional devel-opment programs (see Appendix B, “1. One State’s Statewide K-12 Reading Initiative”).

In California the LongBeach Unified SchoolDistrict’s Leadership forLiteracy bimonthlyadministrator trainingprovides opportunitiesfor school leaders toobserve implementa-tion of programs atmodel school sites.Principals learn how toconduct walkthroughs,promote communitylearning and collabora-tion, and work withcontent-area depart-

ment heads to discuss student work as the basis for instructionalplanning and professional development. Participants also learnhow to help classroom teachers raise their students’ reading pro-ficiency levels on standards-based assessments.

Strategy 5: Measure Progress inAdolescent Literacy at the School,District, and State LevelsAs state initiatives progress, it will become important to assessand convey the positive impact of these efforts. States must deter-mine whether they have the data sources and tools to accomplishtheir goals and measure progress toward achieving those goals. Insome states, it will be necessary to strengthen state assessmentsand improve the value and timeliness of literacy performance data.

Review and Strengthen State Assessments

Currently, some state definitions of literacy proficiency are quitelow relative to national expectations.44 Just like state standards,state assessments should be examined for the extent to whichthey reflect real-world literacy demands and expectations embed-ded in respected national tests. Comparing student achievementon state literacy assessments to student achievement on NAEP, inwhich all states are required to participate under the No Child LeftBehind Act, can indicate how well a state’s assessments measure upto national benchmarks.

Improve the Value and Timeliness of LiteracyPerformance Data

States will also need to think about how to make literacy per-formance data more user friendly and available to educators andpolicymakers. Technology is rapidly offering better options forassessment and communication of assessment results. States canuse technology better to ensure performance data are provided ina timely manner and in an accessible format to guide state, local,and school literacy planning and practice. For example, BostonPublic Schools’ Internet-based resource (www.mybps.org) enablescertified users to access state assessment and other achievementdata for current students. Through this site, teachers and admin-istrators can generate standard and customized reports of students’recent and past achievement performance.

To measure the progress and long-term impacts of adolescent lit-eracy initiatives, longitudinal data on student achievement isnecessary. Many states are now developing data systems withunique student identifiers. States should ensure these systemsenable customized queries relative to adolescent literacy indica-tors, as does Florida (see Appendix B, “8. One State’s Approachto Tracking Students Longitudinally”).

Information on the progress of students in specific programs orthose receiving particular interventions enables states to betterassess the promise of these initiatives. Student mobility, after-school program participation, and other factors can affect studentachievement outcomes and should also be tracked.

Governors will want to determine the efficacy and resourcerequirements of state-led adolescent literacy initiatives. Data sys-tems that link student outcomes and costs for particular programsand interventions will enable state policymakers to evaluate themerit and cost-effectiveness of specific approaches. Such infor-mation can guide future planning and investments. yz 21

22

4conclusion

23

24

Right now an unprecedented opportunityexists to focus national and state attentionon the needs of America’s more than 8 million

struggling adolescent readers in grades four through12. Governors are committed to improving andredesigning their middle and high schools to raisehigh school graduation rates and to prepare morestudents for success in postsecondary education andthe workplace. In addition, states have realized gainsand learned lessons from their early literacy initiativesand are eager to build on these successes. Moreover,the knowledge base about effective practice inadolescent literacy continues to grow, and newsources of funding for adolescent literacy havebegun to emerge.

Governors are uniquely positioned to raise awarenessof the adolescent literacy problem in their state andprovide leadership to improve literacy performance.Along with other state leaders, governors can helpthe public understand the connection between liter-acy achievement and educational and employmentopportunities.

Governors can also make the case that a focus onadolescent literacy is not at odds with an early liter-acy initiative; a strong education pipeline will pro-vide a continuum of literacy support for K-12. Inaddition, governors can ensure teachers and princi-pals have the expertise and resources they need tosupport their students’ literacy growth across gradelevels and content areas. By pursuing the strategiesrecommended in this guide, governors can set thestage for a revitalized education system that preparesstudents for the increasing literacy demands of work,education, and civic participation in the 21st century.

25

1 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessmentof Educational Progress, The Nation’s Report Card: ReadingHighlights 2003 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 2003).

2 A. P. Carnevale and D. M. Derochers, Standards for What? TheEconomic Roots of K-16 Reform (Washington, D.C.:Educational Testing Service, 2004); and P. E. Barton, WhatJobs Require: Literacy, Education, and Training, 1940-2006(Washington, D.C.: Educational Testing Service, 2000).

3 K. Taube and J. Mejding, “A Nine-Country Study: What Werethe Differences Between Low- and High-PerformingStudents in the IEA Reading Literacy Study?” in ReadingLiteracy in an International Perspective: Collected Papers fromthe IEA Reading Literacy Study, NCES 96-258, ed. M. Binkleyand T. Williams (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, 1996).

4 Achieve, Inc., Rising to the Challenge (Washington, D.C.:Achieve, Inc., February 2005); National Center forEducation Statistics, Remedial Education at Degree-GrantingPostsecondary Institutions in Fall 2000 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Education, November 2003); C. Kaestle,A. Campbell, J. D. Finn et al., Adult Literacy and Education inAmerica (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, 2001); and J.Greene and M. Winters, Public High School Graduation andCollege-Readiness Rates: 1991-2002 (New York, N.Y.: TheManhattan Institute, 2005).

5 J. Greene, The Cost of Remedial Education: How Much MichiganPays When Students Fail to Learn Basic Skills (Midland, Mich.:Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2000).

6 A. Sum, R. Taggart, J. McLaughlin et al., The National EconomicDownturn and Deteriorating Youth Employment Prospects: TheCase for a Young Adult Jobs Stimulus Program (Chicago, Ill.:Alternative Schools Network, November 2001).

7 Barton, What Jobs Require, 2000; and Kaestle et al., AdultLiteracy and Education, 2001.

8 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessmentof Educational Progress, The Nation’s Report Card, 2003.

9 Carnevale and Derochers, Standards for What?, 2004; andBarton, What Jobs Require, 2000.

10 D. W. Moore, T. W. Bean, D. Birdyshaw et al., AdolescentLiteracy: A Position Statement (Newark, Del.: InternationalReading Association, 1999).

11 M. R. Buly and S. Valencia, Meeting the Needs of FailingReaders: Cautions and Considerations for State Policy (Seattle,Wash.: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, 2003).

12 D. S. Strickland and D. E. Alvermann, “Learning andTeaching Literacy in Grades 4-12: Issues and Challenges,” inBridging the Literacy Achievement Gap: Grades 4-12, ed. D. S.Strickland and D. E. Alvermann (New York, N.Y.: TeachersCollege Press, 2004).

13 National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition andLanguage Instruction Educational Programs, “How Has theEnglish Learner Changed?”, May 2005, retrieved on June 4,2005, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.htm.

14 J. Van Hook and M. Fix, “A Profile of Immigrant Students inU.S. schools,” in Overlooked and Underserved: ImmigrantStudents in U.S. Secondary Schools, ed. J. Ruiz-de-Velasco andM. Fix (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2000).

15 National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition ofEducation 2003: Indicator 29, Beginning Teachers(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,2003); C. E. Snow, M. S. Burns, and P. Griffin, eds.,Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (WashingtonD.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), available athttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/pdf/29_2003.pdf; NationalCenter for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education2004: Indicator 24, Out-of-Field Teaching by PovertyConcentration and Minority Enrollment (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004), available athttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2004/pdf/24_2004.pdf; R. Ingersoll,“Why Do High-Poverty Schools Have Difficulty StaffingTheir Classrooms with Qualified Teachers?” (paperprepared for Renewing Our Schools, Securing Our Future, ANational Task Force on Public Education, November 2004),available at http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A5215D6FF2E06E03%7D/Ingersoll-FINAL.pdf.

NOTES

26

16 Greene and Winters, Public High School Graduation, 2005; G.Orfield, D. Losen, J. Wald et al., Losing Our Future: HowMinority Youth Are Being Left Behind by the Graduation RateCrisis (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project atHarvard University, 2004).

17 Orfield et al., Losing Our Future, 2004; and G. Orfield and C.Lee, Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and EducationalInequality (Cambridge, Mass.: The Civil Rights Project atHarvard University, 2005).

18 J. S. McCombs, S. N. Kirby, H. Barney et al., Achieving Stateand National Literacy Goals, A Long Uphill Road: A Report toCarnegie Corporation of New York, TR-180-EDU (SantaMonica, Calif.: RAND Education, 2005).

19 Ibid.

20 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment ofEducational Progress, The Nation’s Report Card, 2003.

21 C. L. Greenleaf, R. Schoenbach, C. Cziko et al., “ApprenticingAdolescent Readers to Academic Literacy,” HarvardEducational Review 71, no. 1 (2001): 79-129; M. F. Hock andD. D. Deshler, “Adolescent Literacy: Ensuring That NoChild Is Left Behind, Principal Leadership (November 2003):50-56; J. A. Langer, “Beating the Odds: Teaching Middle andHigh School Student to Read and Write Well,” AmericanEducational Research Journal 38, no. 4 (2001): 837-80; and J.McPartland, R. Balfanz, W. Jordan et al. “Improving Climateand Achievement in a Troubled Urban High School throughthe Talent Development Model,” Journal of Education forStudents Placed at Risk 3, no. 4 (1998): 337-61, 1998.

22 Taube and Mejding, “A Nine-Country Study,” 1996.

23 Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, Works inProgress: A Report on Middle and High School ImprovementPrograms (Washington, D.C.: Comprehensive SchoolReform Quality Center, January 2005).

24 C. Cziko, “Reading Happens in Your Mind, Not in YourMouth: Teaching and Learning ‘Academic Literacy’ in anUrban High School,” California English 3, no. 4 (1998): 1-4.

25 R. Schoenbach, C. Greenleaf, C. Cziko et al., Reading forUnderstanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in the Middle andHigh School Classrooms (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass,1999).

26 Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center, Works inProgress, 2005; J. Meltzer, N. C. Smith, and H. Clark,Adolescent Literacy Resources: Linking Research and Practice(Providence, R.I.: Northeast and Islands RegionalEducational Laboratory at Brown University, 2001).

27 A. L. Barry, “High School Reading Programs Revisited,”Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40 (1997): 524-31.

28 Education Trust, Stalled in Secondary: Student Achievement Lagsin Middle Grades and High School (Washington, D.C.:Education Trust, 2004).

29 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment ofEducational Progress, NAEP 2004 Trends in AcademicProgress, Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading andMathematics: Findings in Brief (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education, 2005).

30 T. Salinger, M. Kamil, B. Kapinus et al., “Development of aNew Framework for the 2009 Reading Assessment” (paperpresented to the National Reading Conference, SanAntonio, Texas, December 2004); and National Commissionon NAEP 12th Grade Assessment and Reporting, 12th GradeStudent Achievement in America: A New Vision for NAEP(Washington, D.C.: National Assessment Governing Board,2004).

31 Southern Regional Education Board, High Schools That WorkGetting Students Ready for High School series, retrievedAugust 14, 2005, at http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/PubsDisplay.asp?SubSectionID=42.

32 E-mail communication with Achieve, Inc. staff JoAnne Ereshand Laura McGiffert Slover, 12 July, 2005.

33 T. Shanahan, “Improving Reading Achievement in SecondarySchools: Structures and Reforms,” in Bridging the LiteracyAchievement Gap: Grades 4-12, ed. D. S. Strickland and D. E.Alvermann (New York. N.Y.: Teachers College Press, 2004).

34 G. Biancarosa and C. E. Snow, Reading Next: A Vision forAction and Research in Middle and High School Literacy(Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004).

35 R. Heller, S. Calderon, E. Medrich et al., AcademicAchievement in the Middle Grades and What Does Research TellUs?: A Review of the Literature (Atlanta, Ga.: SouthernRegional Education Board, 2002).

36 Langer, “Beating the Odds,” 2001.

37 Greenleaf et al., “Apprenticing Adolescent Readers,” 2001;Hock and Deshler, “Adolescent Literacy,” 2003; Langer,“Beating the Odds,” 2001; and McPartland et al., “ImprovingClimate,” 1998.

38 Shanahan, “Improving Reading Achievement,” 2004.

39 P. A. Lauer, M. Akiba, S. B. Wilkerson et al., The Effectivenessof Out-Of-School-Time Strategies in Assisting Low-AchievingStudents in Reading and Mathematics: A Research Synthesis,updated edition (Aurora, Colo.: Mid-Continent Research forEducation and Learning, 2004).

40 International Reading Association et al. Standards for Middleand High School Literacy Coaches and Subject-Matter Teachers(Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, forth-coming).

41 B. Hall, “Literacy Coaches: An Evolving Role,” CarnegieReporter vol. 3, no. 1 (2004); and B. Neufeld and D. Roper,Coaching: A Strategy for Developing Instructional Capacity:Promises and Practicalities (Providence, R.I.: AnnenbergInstitute for School Reform, June 2003).

42 R. M. Ingersoll, Is There Really a Teacher Shortage?, R-03-04(Seattle, Wash.: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,September 2003).

43 National Association of Secondary School Principals, Creatinga Culture of Literacy: A Guide for Middle and High SchoolPrincipals (Reston, Va.: National Association of SecondarySchool Principals, forthcoming).

44 McCombs et al., Achieving State and National Literacy Goals,2005.

27

28

Appendix A: Resources on Adolescent Literacy

Characteristics and Causes of Poor Readers

Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2003). Meeting the Needs of FailingReaders: Cautions and Considerations for State Policy. Seattle,WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Reading-MRBSV-04-2003.pdf

Article reporting the results of a scientific study identifyingthe specific reading struggles of fourth-grade students whofailed their state’s reading test. Discusses policy implications.

Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). “Late-emerging reading difficulties.” Journal of EducationalPsychology, 95(2):211-225. http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/research_digest/late_emerging_reading_disabilities.html

Article reporting results of a scientific study comparingfourth- and fifth-grade children with early-identified andlate-identified reading deficits with children who had no his-tory of reading problems. Finds readers fell into three cate-gories. Also finds that children with late-identified deficitsappeared to truly have late-emerging problems: the problemswere not apparent from performance in earlier grades.

Consequences of Poor Adolescent Readers and Writers

American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a HighSchool Diploma That Counts. Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc.http://www.achieve.org/dstore.nsf/Lookup/ADPreport /$file/ADPreport.pdf

Report on how the American high school diploma has lostits value because it no longer “reflects adequate preparationfor the intellectual demands of adult life,” but rather is con-sidered by employers and postsecondary institutions “as littlemore than a certificate of attendance.” Argues that gradua-tion requirements and assessments must be changed to matchreal-world standards. Presents a set of benchmarks to helppolicymakers in this task.

Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the Dropout Crisis:Which High Schools Produce the Nation’s Dropouts? Where AreThey Located? Who Attends Them? Baltimore, MD: Center forSocial Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University.http://www.csos.jhu.edu/tdhs/rsch/Locating_Dropouts.pdf

Report on graduation rates across America with alarmingimplications about the inequity of education, noting that atnearly 1,000 U.S. high schools the chances of graduating areabout half. Moreover, about 40 percent of the freshman classdoes not graduate at 2000 of the nation’s high schools. Whileonly 11 percent of white students attend schools where grad-uating “is not the norm,” nearly 40 percent of Hispanic stu-dents and 50 percent of black students attend them.

Barton, P. E. (2000). What Jobs Require: Literacy, Education, andTraining, 1940-2006. Washington, DC: Educational TestingService. http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICJOBS.pdf

Reviews how the distributions of jobs, required literacy skills,and salaries have changed from 1940 to the present with pro-jections through 2006.

Carnevale, A. P. (2001). Help Wanted ... College Required.Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service, Office forPublic Leadership.

Reviews how the distributions of jobs, education, and salarieshave changed by comparing various statistics from the 1950sto the present.

Carnevale, A. P., & Desrochers, D. M. (2003). Standards forWhat? The Economic Roots of K-16 Reform. Washington, DC:Educational Testing Service.

Tracks the relationship between educational attainment andjob requirements since 1959 and examines future work andeducation requirements through 2020.

Greene, J.P., & Winters, M. (2005) Public High School Graduationand College Readiness Rates in the United States. New York:Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_08.htm

Historical look at high school graduation and college readinessrates from 1991-2002.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools andColleges (2005). Writing: A Powerful Message from StateGovernment. New York: The College Board. http://www.wr i t ingcommiss ion.org /prod_downloads /wr i t ingcom/powerful-message-from-state.pdf

Report delineating the writing skills required for professionalstate government employees.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools andColleges (2003). Writing: A Ticket to Work...or a Ticket Out.New York: The College Board. h t tp : / /www.wr i t ingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf

Report reviewing the value and expectations of businessleaders for writing ability in their employees.

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004). LosingOur Future: How Minority Youth Are Being Left Behind by theGraduation Rate Crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil RightsProject at Harvard University. http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/dropouts/LosingOurFuture.pdf

Report on the gap in graduation rates between white andminority youth. Discusses how severe the problem actually is,how it has been obscured, and how it can be remedied.

Status of Poor Adolescent Readers and Writers

Education Trust. (2005). Stalled in Secondary. Washington, DC:Education Trust. http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/stalled+in+secondary.htm

Reviews results of three full years of the implementation ofthe No Child Left Behind Act using state testing data andfinds that in contrast to fairly consistent progress in elemen-tary grade reading achievement, middle and high schoolreading achievement shows uneven progress across 29 states.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The Condition ofEducation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005094

Report reviewing statistical indicators of education enroll-ment, student achievement, student effort and progressamong different population groups, and the context of post-secondary education, among several other topics. Includesreview of National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) data.

National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools andColleges (2003). The Neglected “R”: The Need for a WritingRevolution. New York: The College Board. http://www.writingcommission.org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf

Report detailing how writing has been left behind in cur-riculum and school reform efforts. Reviews the importance ofwriting, current writing achievement, and the challenge ofwriting instruction. Provides suggestions for policymakers onhow to launch a ‘writing revolution’ to help improve writinginstruction and achievement.

Sloan McCombs, J., Kirby, S. N., Barney, H., Darilek, H., &Magee, S. (2004). Achieving State and National Literacy Goals:A Long Uphill Road. Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2004/RAND_TR180.pdf

Compares literacy achievement in grades 4 and 8 on theNAEP and state achievement tests. Finds disparity betweenthe two, as well as a persistent achievement gap across meas-ures.

Research-Based Promising Practices

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading Next: A Vision forAction and Research in Middle and High School Literacy.Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.http://www.all4ed.org/publications/ReadingNext/ReadingNext.pdf

Report reviewing the adolescent literacy problem and 15 keyelements supported by research and practice. Argues no oneapproach or element or even combination of elements willbe effective for all struggling readers because of their diverseneeds. Posits that researchers and policymakers, as well asother stakeholders, should collaborate to define and evaluateadolescent literacy interventions to build the knowledge basemore quickly while effecting immediate improvements.

Jurich, S., & Estes, S. (2000). Raising Academic Achievement: AStudy of 20 Successful Programs. Washington DC: AmericanYouth Policy Forum.

Identifies 20 U.S. programs that have successfully raised stu-dent academic achievement, drawn from a sample of 96youth initiatives. Includes criteria used to select programsand detailed profiles of each program and the student popu-lations served.

29

Juvonen, J., Le, V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L.(2004). Focus on the Wonder Years: Challenges Facing theAmerican Middle School. Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation.

Reviews the historical origins of the middle school and itseffects on American education. Chapter four reviews middleschool academic achievement and notes that between 1970and 1999, while NAEP scores in math and science rose, read-ing remained stable.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and Literacy: Reading for the 21stCentury. Washington DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/AdolescentsAndLiteracy.pdf

Report reviewing the literacy demands adolescents face inthe 21st century. Discusses the differing needs of strugglingadolescent readers, including those of English-languagelearners. Also reviews research on instructional strategies toimprove adolescent literacy and the developmental nature ofboth reading and content learning.

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and highschool students to read and write well. American EducationalResearch Journal, 38, 837-880.

Study of schools that were successful in teaching reading andwriting despite challenging school and community conditions.

Langer, J. A. (2002). Effective Literacy Instruction: BuildingSuccessful Reading and Writing Programs. Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.

Describes the common factors found in 25 middle and highschools that “beat the odds” by promoting excellent studentliteracy achievement. Based on the results of a five-year study.

Strickland, D. S. & Alvermann, D. (2004). Bridging the LiteracyAchievement Gap: Grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College.

Addresses issues associated with the literacy achievement ofpreadolescents and adolescents. About half of the book isdevoted to describing the populations who are struggling,while the other half describes several promising programs.

Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instructing adolescentswith learning disabilities: A component and compositeanalysis. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(2):109-119.

Meta-analysis of 913 intervention studies. Identifies instruc-tional components found successful for adolescents withlearning disabilities.

Tools for Planning Adolescent Literacy Efforts

Achieve, Inc. , & National Governors Association.(2005). An Action Agenda for Improving America’sHigh Schoo l s . Washington DC: Authors .http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0502actionagenda.pdf

Report intended for governors and state policymakers outlin-ing five key ideas to help restore value to the American highschool diploma.

Celio, M. B., & Harvey, J. (2005). Buried Treasure: Developing aManagement Guide From Mountains of School Data. Seattle,WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

A practical guide to conveying seven essential pieces ofinformation about educational systems in a concise and con-textualized manner. The seven indicators help administratorstrack progress and identify trouble areas. Specific examplesand guidelines are given.

International Reading Association, National Council of Teachersof English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,National Council for the Social Studies, & National ScienceTeachers Association. (forthcoming). Standards for Middleand High School Literacy Coaches and Subject Matter Teachers.

Set of standards produced by a number of national organiza-tions to define the role and requisite skills and knowledge forliteracy coaches and teachers of literacy across content areasin secondary schools.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005).Creating a Culture of Literacy: A Guide for Middle and HighSchool Principals. Reston, VA: Author.

Book for secondary principals on the role of leadership inraising literacy achievement. Chapters on assessment pro-grams, professional development and intervention plans pro-vide a summary of research and offer suggested action stepsfor each topic.

30

31

National Governors Association. (2005). Getting It Done: TenSteps to a State Action Agenda, a Guidebook of Promising Stateand Local Practices. Washington DC: Author. http://www.nga.org/cda/files/05warnerguide.pdf

Guide outlining 10 steps to creating an action agendadesigned to restore value to the American high school diplo-ma. Provides detailed examples of local and state high schoolreform.

Appendix B: Examples of Promising Practices

1. One State’s Statewide K-12 Reading Initiative

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education passed a resolu-tion to appoint a reading panel to develop the Alabama ReadingInitiative (ARI). ARI is a statewide K-12 initiative whose goal isto achieve grade-level literacy for all Alabama public school stu-dents. Of the 537 initial cohorts of ARI schools, 484 of themserve students in at least one of grades four through 12. Of the211 schools in the newest group participating in training in 2005,195 of them have students in at least one of grades 4 through 12.

ARI began the initiative by selecting literacy demonstration sitesto serve as models of effective, research-based reading practice.Schools that volunteer to participate in ARI must commit to the100 percent literacy goal; assure commitment among at least 85percent of the school’s faculty and principal leadership; agree toattend and apply extensive training; develop and implement anintervention plan for the school’s struggling students; and submitto an evaluation.

ARI sites receive a great deal of technical assistance and profes-sional development. The program requires principal participationin continuous development meetings and provides professionaldevelopment to content teachers about comprehension strategieswithin their content areas. Each site must also appoint a full-timereading specialist who works with teachers and struggling readersand is trained by regional reading coaches. Schools also collabo-rate with higher education faculty partners who serve as mentors.

The Alabama Department of Education, business community,and governor have played important roles in designing a programto address students’ chronic reading difficulties, raising funds tosupport communications and assistance efforts and securing statefunding to extend ARI.

The A+ Education Foundation, founded as a nonprofit organiza-tion by private sector business and community leaders in 1991 topromote excellence in K-12 education, has been instrumental inestablishing and promoting ARI throughout Alabama.

Evaluations have found gains in the numbers of students scoringproficient and a decrease of the population of struggling readers.An analysis of the performance of the first four cohorts of ARIschools shows greater gains in reading proficiency than do non-ARI schools across schools and for each major ethnic group.

2. One High School’s Successful Literacy Plan

The student body at J.E.B. Stuart High School in Fairfax County,Virginia, numbers approximately 1,500 students. Two-thirds ofthe students are second-language learners from over 70 countries.There are 398 students in the English for Speakers of OtherLanguages (ESOL) Program. Less than a decade ago, students atStuart ranked among the lowest performers in Virginia andmissed an average of 23 days of school per year. Upon his arrival,Principal Mel Riddile turned to his teaching staff for answers tofix the problem. Teachers emphasized their students’ need for bet-ter literacy skills in order to succeed in the core curriculum.Together, Riddile and his teaching staff developed a comprehen-sive literacy plan designed to turn around literacy achievementand ensure students’ overall school success.

Screening StudentsRiddile and his teachers decided to screen all eighth graders slat-ed to enter the school in the fall. Data revealed that over three-quarters of entering students scored one standard deviation belowgrade level and 24 percent scored three years below grade level.As a follow-up, students scoring below the 40th percentile werefurther evaluated to better diagnose their struggles using an indi-vidually administered reading assessment.

Instructional and Intervention Responses

All entering freshmen who are reading significantly below gradelevel are required to take a literacy class. Instruction in this classis tailored to students’ needs. Students move through the contentat their own pace using computerized lessons that reinforceteacher-led lessons. After- school and summer school programsalso offer additional supports for students. Teachers are helped inspecific content areas by a literacy coach who helps them supporttheir students’ reading of textbooks, so that instruction is rein-forced throughout the school day.

Professional Development and Teacher Buy-InAlthough teachers expressed frustration at the lack of readingskills among their students, Riddile still faced initial teacherreluctance to the idea of a school-wide approach to the problem.By analyzing the data collected from screening entering students,teachers were able to understand the full depth of the problemand the individual needs of their students. Teachers began theirprofessional development by taking an in-house college creditcourse in standards-based instruction and literacy at the second-ary level, and a literacy coach supplemented this with brief plan-ning period development sessions and peer teaching and learningactivities. All professional development activities have been job-imbedded.

Addressing the Needs of English Language LearnersThe ESOL Program at Stuart emphasizes three things with theirEnglish Language Learners, the value of their linguistic and cul-tural background, high expectations for their academic achieve-ment, and the importance of their involvement in the school.ESOL students are expected to meet the same high standards asall students in the school, and the ESOL program has a specificplan for accomplishing this important goal. Students are groupedby level of language proficiency with five proficiency levels toaccommodate the differing English language needs of the stu-dents. At the lowest levels of English proficiency, students spendmore time focused on learning language. As they advance, theymove into content classes where teachers use special strategies tomake the content accessible. At the upper levels, students aremainstreamed into regular classes, but given extra support tomeet grade-level expectations.

3. States Encouraging District and School Literacy Plans

Many states, including Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Ohioencourage the development of district and school literacy plansby providing tools and resources to streamline planning.

Kentucky provides districts and middle and high schools with atool to develop a plan aligned to the curriculum and the state’sprogram effectiveness review indicators. In developing their liter-acy plans, middle and high school staff identify the school’s pri-ority needs and goals based on student performance data andinclude strategies and activities for literacy instruction across thecurriculum. The Kentucky Department of Education also offersstudent reading lists, technology resources, and professionaldevelopment materials. More Reading Strategies in Action arematerials for professional development providers produced inpartnership with Kentucky Educational Television that showcasevideotaped examples of teachers modeling effective strategies tohelp students in grades six through 10 improve comprehension ofinformational texts in English language arts, mathematics, sci-ence and social studies. Additional materials, also aligned to thestate standards, are available for reading specialists.

The Massachusetts Department of Education awards grants tomiddle and high schools committed to addressing adolescent lit-eracy in order to reduce special education placements. Schoolswith large percentages of struggling readers and/or special needsstudents receive priority for funding. Grant recipients are expect-ed to form a school reading leadership team and develop a schoolprofile of student reading needs and related school action plan.These documents are to be based on results from the school’s self-assessment of student reading needs and current content-area andintervention program practices. Reading leadership teams attendDepartment of Education sponsored network meetings through-out the year to discuss current research on adolescent literacy andreceive professional development on a schoolwide approach toimproving reading. The Massachusetts Department of Educationcurrently dedicates approximately $1,000,000 annually to supportthis secondary reading initiative.

Ohio’s High School Transformation Initiative seeks to improvestudent achievement in the state’s most troubled high schools bycreating autonomous small schools, which include an instruc-tional focus on literacy. The KnowledgeWorks Foundation, inpartnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the

32

Ohio Department of Education, assists schools in 17 large urbandistricts across the state by providing professional developmentopportunities and resources to help schools meet the goals of theirliteracy action plans. Each school’s literacy plan must includesteps for identifying and providing support to underperformingstudents, developing a curriculum that includes literacy in allcontent-area classes, and providing programs for increasing theliteracy in students’ families and communities.

4. District-Level Approaches to Literacy Instruction andIntervention for Adolescents

Many districts seek to support the provision of tailored interven-tions and supports for their most struggling readers. The AustinIndependent School District in Texas uses a three-tiered inter-vention model for three types of struggling middle school readers.It identifies students who are English language learners (ELLs)who have not yet acquired a level of English mastery sufficient foracademic success, students who exhibit below grade level com-prehension (due to fluency, vocabulary deficits, etc.), and stu-dents who have not acquired adequate decoding skills. It providessupplemental reading skills reinforcement in all classrooms; cor-rective reading for students who are identified as up to a year ortwo below grade level in reading; and an intensive and compre-hensive reading intervention (e.g., Scholastic’s READ180) forstudents who are more than one and a half or two years belowgrade level in reading. After a year of regular class reading inter-ventions, all 17 middle schools in the district showed gains inreading in both the seventh- and eighth-grade scores on the statestandards-based assessment.

Baltimore City, Maryland high schools and Philadelphia,Pennsylvania high schools have adopted the Talent DevelopmentHigh School (TDHS) model for some of their districts’ largeurban, high-poverty high schools and have seen gains in students’test scores and course pass rates and high school graduation rates,respectively. TDHS is being implemented in 50 high schools in23 districts and 11 states across the country. The model providesinterventions such as “Strategic Reading,” an accelerated, inten-sive double-dose instruction course for ninth graders who are twoor more years below grade level. TDHS also incorporates a read-ing lab for the most challenged readers.

As part of a broader district-wide adolescent literacy initiative,the Boston Public Schools’ Transition Program offers studentstransitioning from eighth grade to ninth grade who are perform-

ing below standards 15 months of intensive, individualizedinstruction. For high school students needing help with passingthe state test required for graduation, the MassachusettsDepartment of Education provides grants for tutoring in literacyand math. The district also offers a “Summer Review” program forall high school students not passing English courses and “SummerTransition” programs for all middle and high school students notpassing state tests or not meeting other required benchmarks. In1998, 43 percent of 10th-graders in the Boston Public Schoolspassed the English language arts portion of the state test, theMassachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), oneof the most rigorous in the United States. Six years later, in 2004,77 percent of 10th-graders passed this portion of the MCAS.Including the MCAS retests and performance appeal results, 89percent of active seniors in 2004 have passed the English lan-guage arts portion.

Clark County School District in Las Vegas, Nevada, began anadolescent literacy initiative based upon successful implementa-tion of Scholastic’s READ180 program with middle school spe-cial education students that began in 1999. What started as asmall intensive intervention approach for students primarily inspecial education classrooms grew to a comprehensive approachto literacy instruction in secondary schools for students in thebottom quartile that currently reaches nearly 8,000 at-riskstudents in grades six through 12.

5. One District’s Approach to Building Teachers’ Capacity toImprove Adolescent Literacy Across the Curriculum

Boston Public Schools have helped students raise their pass rateson the Massachusetts state test by 42 percent in six years with anintensive focus on coaching teachers to support students’ literacyin the content-area classroom.

The Collaborative Coaching and Learning (CCL) model used inBoston has been a crucial factor in this success. A partnershipwith the Boston Plan for Excellence was key to helping Boston’smiddle schools and high schools implement the CCL model andthe Readers/Writers Workshop approach that teachers learn as away of supporting students’ academic engagement and literacy.

33

34

Literacy coaches have regular professional development andreflection sessions to strengthen their own work with teams ofteachers. They then work with these teams of middle and highschool teachers in intensive eight-week cycles. The CCL model,in which teachers inquire into student performance, has beenaugmented by Boston’s use of the Reading Apprenticeship®

instructional framework. With this framework, teachers wereencouraged to inquire into their own processes of thinking, read-ing, and writing in their particular disciplines. By looking closelyat the specific ways they read and think to understand differenttypes of science, social studies, or math texts, teachers have mademore advanced discipline-specific literacy accessible to their stu-dents and students’ ability to comprehend academic texts hasimproved.

6. State Partnerships to Build Educators’ Capacity inAdolescent Literacy Instruction

Delaware, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina andVirginia offer assistance to schools through partnerships thatinclude a variety of stakeholders with training and researchexpertise.

The Delaware Department of Education developed the Successfor Secondary Struggling Readers (SSSR) Institute in consulta-tion with the University of Delaware and with input from read-ing specialists from across the state. The SSSR training is avail-able to special education, English and content-area teachers ofstruggling readers in grades four through 12. Teachers who com-plete the 90 hour program are eligible for a 2 percent pay raise.

Kentucky’s Collaborative Center for Literacy Development: EarlyChildhood Through Adulthood (CCLD) is a partnership amongeight state universities, the National Center for Family Literacy,the Kentucky Department of Education, the Kentucky AdultEducation, and others interested in literacy development. Thiscollaborative provides professional development and training toteachers across the state. Similarly, the North CarolinaDepartment of Public Instruction, in collaboration with theSouthern Regional Education Board and LearnNC, offers cross-disciplinary middle and high school teams intensive training inReading and Writing for Learning.

The South Carolina Reading Initiative (SCRI) is an intensivestaff development effort. Literacy coaches provide classroom-based support to participating teachers and lead monthly studygroups for teachers and administrators across the state. Begunoriginally as a Kindergarten through fifth grade program, South

Carolina has extended the reading initiative to middle grades andplans to launch a high school initiative in the 2005-06 schoolyear. In FY 2005, 27 middle grades literacy coaches served 40schools in 23 districts, and 24 additional coaches will serve one totwo middle schools each, beginning in FY 2006. The initiative, apartnership among the South Carolina State Department ofEducation, the National Council of Teachers of English, and theUniversity of South Carolina, trains coaches over a four-yearperiod. Over the course of their four-year training, middle gradesliteracy coaches earn 36 hours of credit in graduate courses in lit-eracy instruction and participate in monthly trainings. Manycoaches have continued their graduate study to earn the nineadditional credits required for a doctorate in language and literacy.Regional literacy coaches support literacy coaches throughmonthly study groups and classroom visitation at the school site.

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) in conjunctionwith a variety of consortia and universities provides professionaldevelopment in literacy for teachers in grades four through 12.Currently there is an ongoing literacy initiative for middle schoolteachers supported by the School University Regional Network atthe College of William and Mary and a four-part video seminaron reading comprehension delivered by the Southside VirginiaRegional Technology Consortium for teachers in grades fourthrough eight who teach in the south central regions of Virginia.James Madison University and VDOE provide summerContent/Teaching Academies in core areas, including courses forsecondary and special education teachers on reading and writing.VDOE in partnership with George Mason University provides anongoing series of reading courses for teachers of limited Englishproficiency students.

7. One University’s Approach for Developing an AdolescentLiteracy Mentor-Based Induction Program

The New Teacher Center at the University of California, SantaCruz has developed a mentor-based induction program that pro-vides job-embedded mentoring for secondary teachers in a 26 dis-trict consortium. With support from Carnegie Corporation ofNew York, the New Teacher Center will gather and analyze base-line data on the adolescent literacy preparation and skills of 330beginning teachers. Because many of the mentor teachers vary intheir understanding of literacy instruction and are often unpre-pared to teach reading comprehension skills to students with lowliteracy skills, the New Teacher Center will also engage membersof five to 10 institutions of higher education to develop special-ized training to assist middle and high school mentor teachers intheir understanding of adolescent literacy. The work will allow

35

for preliminary planning for a Mentoring for Adolescent Literacytraining and provide a model to better align preservice educationand induction and mentoring programs in the areas of literacyand pedagogy.

8. One State’s Approach to Tracking Students Longitudinally

Florida began tracking students longitudinally three years ago.Students in Florida are required to have a unique student identi-fication number. Districts use these student identification (ID)numbers to report student data to the Florida Department ofEducation. These unique numbers assigned by the district arethen translated to a K-20 unique student ID for storage of this stu-dent data in the educational data warehouse. This system of iden-tifying students allows the department to track even the mostmobile student over the years. Tracking progress at a student levelallows the state to understand how much students improve in lit-eracy achievement over time. This allows educators and policy-makers to understand if a student has met the standard for a par-ticular year and if that represents an improvement over past years.In addition, some literacy support services that students receiveare also tracked, and policymakers are able to see which services,programs and policies promote progress among students — andeventually if the service has lasting effects. The Florida systemhas the potential to track a student from the first day ofprekindergarten to college graduation day.

Appendix C: Contacts for More Information onPromising Practices

State leaders can develop policies and programs that build on thelessons learned from promising state and local efforts. Below areindividuals who can provide more information on the promisingpractices referenced throughout the guide and in Appendix B.

AlabamaSherrill Parris, Administrator, Alabama Reading Initiativehttp://www.aplusala.org/initiatives/ari/ari.asp

Austin, Texas Pat Forgione, Superintendent, Austin Independent SchoolDistrict

Peggy Gordon, Associate Superintendent for Middle Schools,Austin Independent School District http://www.austinisd.org/

Boston Public Schools (Massachusetts)Tom Payzant, Superintendent, Boston Public Schools http://www.bpe.org/schools.aspx

Carnegie Corporation of New York Andrés Henríquez, Program Officer, Carnegie Corporation ofNew York http://www.carnegie.org

Clark County School District (Nevada)Barbara Mathews, Executive Director, Student Support Services,Clark County School District http://www.ccsd.net/

DelawareJo-Ann Malfitano Baca, Education Associate, SecondaryReading/Special Education, Delaware Department of Educationhttp://www.doe.state.de.us/reading/

FloridaMary Laura Openshaw, Director, Just Read, Florida!http://www.justreadflorida.com/about.asp

J.E.B. Stuart High School (Virginia)Mel Riddile, Principal http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/StuartHS/

KentuckyMichael Miller, Director of Curriculum Development, KentuckyDepartment of Education http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/Literacy/More+Reading+Strategies+in+Action.htm

Long Beach Unified School DistrictGwendolyn Mathews, Assistant Superintendent for Middle andK-8 Schools, Long Beach Unified

Debbie DeDen, Literacy Program Specialist for Middle Schools,Long Beach Unified School District http://www.lbusd.k12.ca.us/index.asp

MaineSusan Gendron, Commissioner, Maine Department of Educationhttp://www.state.me.us/education/

MassachusettsCheryl Liebling, Director, Office for Reading and Language Arts,Massachusetts Department of Education http://www.doe.mass.edu/read/

New Jersey New Jersey Task Force on Middle Grade Literacy Educationhttp://www.nj.gov/njded/genfo/midliteracy.htm

North CarolinaJanice Davis, Deputy State Superintendent, North CarolinaDepartment of Public Instruction http://www.ncpublicschools.org/

OhioLaura Lipsett, Assistant Director and Adolescent LiteracySpecialist, Office of Reading Improvement, Ohio Department ofEducation http://www.ohioreads.org

Dionne Blue, Program Officer, KnowledgeWorks Foundationhttp://www.kwfdn.org

OregonJulie Anderson, English/Language Arts Curriculum Specialist,Oregon Department of Education

Theresa Levy, School Improvement Specialist, OregonDepartment of Education http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=138

Rhode IslandTodd D. Flaherty, Deputy Commissioner, Rhode IslandDepartment of Education http://www.ridoe.net

South CarolinaSuzette Lee, Interim Director of the Office of Curriculum andStandards and Coordinator of the Institute of Reading

Caroline Savage, Middle School Language Arts Coordinator andLiaison to Institute of Reading http://www.myscschools.com/

Southern Regional Education BoardRenee Murray, School Improvement Consultant, High Schoolsthat Work http://www.sreb.org/

Talent Development High Schools James McPartland, Executive Director, Talent DevelopmentHigh Schools http://www.csos.jhu.edu/tdhs/

TennesseeDeborah Boyd, Executive Director, Office of Curriculum andInstruction, Tennessee Department of Educationhttp://www.tennessee.gov/sbe/Apr05/IID_TN_Reading_Panel.pdf

Daniel D. Challener, President, Public Education Foundation(Chattanooga, Tennessee) http://www.pefchattanooga.org/www

VirginiaLinda M. Wallinger, Assistant Superintendent for InstructionVirginia Department of Education http://www.pen.k12.va.us/

36

37

Federal Program Description Recipient

TITLE I: Grants toSchool Districts

Title I funds are provided through state education agencies to local educationagencies and to public and private schools to serve children who are failing,or most at risk of failing, to meet state academic standards. Title I reachesabout 12.5 million students from preschool age to high school, but most ofthe students served (65 percent) are in grades 1 through 6; another 12 per-cent are in preschool and kindergarten programs. Both schoolwide and tar-geted assistance programs using Title I funds must be based on effectivemeans of improving student achievement and include strategies to supportparental involvement.

Districts

Potential Federal Funding Sources for Adolescent Literacy

Appendix D: Potential Funding Sources forAdolescent Literacy

Although federal monies specifically slated for adolescent litera-cy are limited, the pervasive links between adolescent literacyand so many aspects of school and education reform mean that awide variety of federal resources can be tapped. For instance,given the importance of professional development in the strate-gies outlined here, Title II professional development funds are anobvious resource for financing these efforts.

Federal programs with goals consistent with adolescent literacyefforts are identified in the table below. States may also findpotential financial resources for adolescent literacy initiatives instate appropriations, district funding, and through philanthropicgrants. States may disburse these funds through competitivegrants processes and include match requirements and incentives.

38

Potential Federal Funding Sources for Adolescent Literacy

Federal Program Description Recipient

Striving Readers Striving Readers is a new discretionary grant program, authorized inDecember 2004, aimed at improving the reading skills of middle and highschool aged students who are reading below grade level. Striving Readers sup-ports the implementation and evaluation of research-based reading interven-tions for struggling middle and high school readers in Title I eligible schoolsat risk of not meeting or not meeting adequate yearly progress requirementsunder the No Child Left Behind Act and/or that have significant percentagesor numbers of students reading below grade level.

Districts

TITLE II: TeacherQuality

The purpose of Title II, Part A is to help increase the academic achievementof all students by helping schools and school districts ensure that all teachersare highly qualified to teach. Agencies are given flexibility to design theirprograms; they may address teacher quality issues by focusing on teacherpreparation and qualifications of new teachers, recruitment and hiring,induction, professional development, teacher retention, or the need for morecapable principals and assistant principals to serve as effective school leaders.

States

21st CenturyCommunity LearningCenters (CCLC)- AfterSchool Programs

This program provides expanded academic enrichment opportunities for chil-dren who attend low performing schools. Tutorial services and academicenrichment activities are designed to help students meet local and state aca-demic standards in subjects such as reading and math. In addition, 21stCCLC programs provide youth development activities, drug and violenceprevention programs, technology education programs, art, music and recre-ation programs, counseling and character education to enhance the academiccomponent of the program.

States

Smaller LearningCommunities

Smaller Learning Communities grants assist large public high schools, whichare defined as schools that include grades 11 and 12 and enroll at least 1,000students in grades nine and above. The grants can be used to cover reorgani-zation costs, extended learning time, professional development, support serv-ices for students, building partnerships, and data collection and evaluationactivities.

Schools and communityorganizations

39

Potential Federal Funding Sources for Adolescent Literacy

Federal Program Description Recipient

School DropoutPrevention Program

The School Dropout Prevention Program assists states with annual dropoutrates above their state average to implement effective dropout preventionand re-entry efforts. The grant supports activities such as professional devel-opment, reduction in student-teacher ratios, counseling and mentoring for at-risk students, and the implementation of comprehensive school reform models.

States

Carl D. PerkinsVocational andTechnical Program

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998(Perkins III) is the principal source of federal support to states for theimprovement of vocational and technical education programs at the second-ary and postsecondary levels. States determine what share of Perkins III fundsshould be allocated to the secondary and postsecondary sectors (in 2000,states allocated 62 percent of funds to secondary education). Program per-formance evaluations are partially based on student academic achievement.

States

TRIO Programs The Federal TRIO Programs are educational opportunity outreach programsdesigned to motivate and support students from disadvantaged backgrounds.TRIO includes six outreach and support programs targeted to serve and assistlow-income, first-generation college students, and students with disabilities toprogress through the academic pipeline from middle school to post baccalau-reate programs. TRIO also includes a training program for directors and staffof TRIO projects and a dissemination partnership program to encourage thereplication of successful practices.

Institutions of highereducation, other organ-izations, and/or agen-cies

GEAR UP The GEAR UP program is a discretionary grant program designed to increasethe number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed inpostsecondary education. GEAR UP provides five-year grants to states andpartnerships to provide services at high-poverty middle and high schools.GEAR UP grantees serve an entire cohort of students beginning no laterthan the seventh grade and follow the cohort through high school. GEARUP funds are also used to provide college scholarships to low-income students.

Schools and communi-ty and higher educa-tion organizations

Teacher QualityEnhancement Grants

The Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants initiative consists of three sepa-rate programs: Partnership Grants for Improving Teacher Preparation, StateGrants, and Teacher Recruitment Grants. These grants aim to strengthenteacher education, strengthen teacher certification standards, and to recruithighly qualified teachers. All of these efforts are tailored to preparing andrecruiting teachers who are highly qualified to teach in high need areas.

Funds go to teacherpreparation collegesand universities work-ing with schools

40

Reading to Achieve

NGA CENTER DIVISIONS

The Center is organized into five divisions with some collaborative projects across alldivisions.

b Education provides information on best practices in early childhood, elementaryand secondary, and postsecondary education, including teacher quality, high schoolredesign, reading, access to and success in postsecondary education, extra learningopportunities, and school readiness.

b Health covers a broad range of health financing, service delivery and policy issues,including containing health-care costs, health insurance trends and innovations,state initiatives in public health, aging and long-term care, disease managementand health care information technology, healthcare quality, mental health and substance abuse, and health workforce.

b Homeland Security and Technology informs states of best practices in homelandsecurity policy and implementation including bioterrorism, critical infrastructureprotection, energy assurance, information sharing, intelligence and emergencymanagement, and government use of information technology.

b Environment, Energy & Natural Resources conducts analysis of state and federalpolicies affecting environmental protection, air quality and greenhouse gases,transportation and land use, housing and community design, energy infrastructure,energy efficiency and renewable energy, water and coastal resources, brownfields,military bases, cleanup and stewardship of nuclear weapons sites, and workinglands conservation.

b Social, Economic & Workforce Programs focuses on best practices, policy options,and service delivery improvements across a range of current and emerging issues,including economic development, workforce development, employment services,criminal justice, prisoner reentry, and social services for children, youth, low-income families and people with disabilities.

4

John Thomasian, DirectorNGA Center for Best Practices

444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 267Washington, DC 20001

202.624.5300 www.nga.org/center