Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan:
Report and Recommendations of the
Literacy Task Force
December 20, 2006
1
Table of Contents
Page
I.
Executive Summary
3
II.
Introduction: Purpose and Background
5
III. Current Literacy Achievement in Massachusetts
7
IV. Literacy Vision, Goals, and Action Principles
11
V.
21
Recommendations of the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
VI. Action Plans to Achieve the Literacy Vision and Goals
40
Appendix A. Adolescent Literacy Task Force and Early Literacy Subcommittee
Members
53
Appendix B. The Massachusetts Department of Education’s Framework for
Leadership and Action (DRAFT, 9-06)
56
Appendix C: Components of the Massachusetts Reading First Plan
57
Appendix D: The Massachusetts Assessment Framework for the Massachusetts
Reading First Plan and the John Silber Early Reading Initiative Schools
60
Appendix E: Secondary School Reading Model
65
Appendix F: References
67
2
The Massachusetts PreK – 12 Literacy Plan:
Report and Recommendations of the
Literacy Task Force
I. Executive Summary
In January 2006, Massachusetts received a National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best
Practices Reading to Achieve Grant to develop a state literacy plan. Consequently, Massachusetts
convened an Adolescent Literacy Task Force and a parallel Early Literacy Subcommittee, composed of
representatives from the Governor’s Office, elementary, secondary, and higher education, the Legislature,
business and philanthropy. The purpose of the resulting Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan is to create
a cohesive state literacy policy aimed at helping all students achieve proficiency in reading, writing, and
oral language. It is focused on improving adolescent literacy achievement in grades 4-12 and also
acknowledges the critical need to continue the state’s efforts to improve early literacy in pre-kindergarten
- grade 3 and establish a unified approach to language and literacy instruction from the earliest years of
schooling to high school graduation and postsecondary education.
The plan defines literacy in the United States as the ability to read, write, and speak English in order to
comprehend and communicate meaning with clarity in school, the workplace, at home, and in society.
Importantly, the plan also asserts that literacy in 21st century American society requires sufficient English
language fluency to enable the integration of language and literacy skills and content knowledge.
Proficiency in language and literacy contributes substantially to the likely success students will have in
mastering all areas of the curriculum by enabling students to read and write complex texts, communicate
thoughts, and participate actively in discussion. It is the goal of the literacy plan that all Massachusetts’
students will graduate from high school academically prepared for the rigor of postsecondary education
and the 21st century workforce. Despite the progress Massachusetts has made under Education Reform,
recent national and state reports on college and career readiness confirm that many students, particularly
low-income and minority students, do not have adequate reading, writing, and oral presentation skills.
Efforts to achieve the Massachusetts literacy vision are focused on the following three goals, aligned with
the Department of Education's Framework for Leadership and Action (2006): 1) to prevent literacy
achievement gaps from emerging; 2) to close literacy achievement gaps where they exist; and 3) to
challenge all students to proficient and advanced literacy.
To achieve these goals, the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan has the following five
recommendations:
1. Re-examine the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks to ensure that they reflect current
research recommendations regarding language and literacy skills that PreK-12 students need to
comprehend and communicate meaning across the content areas. This includes: 1) revising the
Massachusetts English Language Arts (ELA) Curriculum Framework by grade level and course
with special attention to the reading and writing of expository text; and 2) revising the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering,
History and Social Sciences, Arts, Foreign Languages, and Health to specify the integration of
disciplinary literacy skills and content area knowledge.
2. Enhance the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) by: 1) diversifying
reading and writing tasks across the content areas on the annual standards-based MCAS
assessments; and 2) developing and disseminating guidance on the local use of literacy-related
3
formative assessments to gauge student progress toward proficiency on MCAS and inform
instructional decision-making.
3. Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on: 1)
foundational language and literacy skills; 2) disciplinary literacy; and 3) literacy interventions for
struggling readers and writers.
4. Build capacity for exemplary literacy instruction by making revisions to licensure regulations and
the Massachusetts Tests of Educator Licensure (MTEL), if warranted, and enhancing educator
preparation programs in order to: 1) improve literacy teaching and leadership; and 2) establish a
literacy coaching pathway.
5. Build a network of statewide literacy leaders representing key stakeholder groups committed to
working together to improve literacy achievement across the Commonwealth including a PreK-16
literacy team to advise on the implementation of the state’s literacy plan and to support alignment
of literacy expectations in pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle school, high school, college, and
careers.
The recommendations described above will be implemented over a five-year period beginning in January
2007 and will require the collaboration of the Governor, members of the Massachusetts Boards of
Education, Higher Education, and Early Education and Care, the University of Massachusetts, and the
business and philanthropic communities. By 2012, it is anticipated that the fully implemented literacy
plan will be instrumental in helping all students achieve proficiency and beyond in reading, writing, and
language development and prepare all students for success in college and the workplace.
4
II. INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Background
In January 2006, Massachusetts received a National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best
Practices Reading to Achieve Grant to develop a state literacy plan. The development of a state literacy
plan is one of the key state strategies that the NGA Center for Best Practices (Berman & Biancarosa,
2005) and the National Association of State Boards of Education (2005) have recommended to guide
improvements in adolescent literacy achievement, as well as to further state efforts in early literacy.
The purpose of the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan is to create a cohesive state literacy policy
aimed at helping all students achieve proficiency in reading, writing, and oral language. The plan defines
literacy as the ability to read, write, and speak in order to comprehend and communicate meaning with
clarity in school, the workplace, at home, and in society.1 Importantly, the plan also asserts that literacy in
21st century American society requires sufficient English language fluency to enable the integration of
oral language and literacy skills and content knowledge. Proficiency in language and literacy contributes
substantially to the likely success students will have in mastering all areas of the curriculum by enabling
students to read and write complex texts, communicate thoughts, and participate actively in discussion.
While not the only measure of success, proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking across the content
areas signals that Massachusetts’ students are graduating from high school well prepared for 21st century
postsecondary education and the workforce.
The five recommendations of the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan are:
1. Re-examine the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks to ensure that they reflect current
research recommendations regarding language and literacy skills that PreK-12 students need to
comprehend and communicate meaning across the content areas. This includes: 1) revisions to
the Massachusetts English Language Arts (ELA) Curriculum Framework by grade level and
course with special attention to the reading and writing of expository text; and 2) revisions to the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering,
History and Social Sciences, Arts, Foreign Languages, and Health to specify the integration of
disciplinary literacy skills and content area knowledge.
2. Enhance the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) by: 1) diversifying
reading and writing tasks across the content areas on the annual standards-based MCAS
assessments; and 2) developing and disseminating guidance on the local use of literacy-related
formative assessments to gauge student progress toward proficiency on MCAS and inform
instructional decision-making.
3. Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on: 1)
foundational language and literacy skills; 2) disciplinary literacy; and 3) literacy interventions for
struggling readers and writers.
1
While some definitions of literacy also include media, this document focuses its attention on reading, writing, and
language development. In the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan, the grade span for early literacy is prekindergarten – 3, and the grade span for adolescent literacy is grades 4-12.
5
4. Build capacity for exemplary literacy instruction by making revisions to licensure regulations and
the Massachusetts Tests of Educator Licensure (MTEL), if warranted, and enhancing educator
preparation programs in order to: 1) improve literacy teaching and leadership; and 2) establish a
literacy coaching pathway.
5. Build a network of statewide literacy leaders representing key stakeholder groups committed to
working together to improve literacy achievement across the Commonwealth including a PreK-16
literacy team to advise on the implementation of the state’s literacy plan and to support alignment
of literacy expectations in pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle school, high school, college, and
careers.
The predominant audience for the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan includes: the Governor of
Massachusetts; the Massachusetts State Legislature; the Commissioner of Education and the
Massachusetts State Board of Education, senior staff at the Massachusetts Department of Education and
other interested Department of Education staff; the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education; the
President’s Office of the University of Massachusetts; the Massachusetts Department of Early Education
and Care; the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education; and key stakeholders in institutions of
higher education, PreK-12 education, businesses, foundations, and non-profit organizations. The
document may also be of interest to students and their families across the Commonwealth.
To assist the state in developing the literacy plan, in April 2006 Massachusetts convened an Adolescent
Literacy Task Force and a parallel Early Literacy Subcommittee (see Appendix A). Participants were
charged with making recommendations to the Governor’s Office and the Department of Education on
actions the state should take to achieve its PreK-12 literacy vision and goals. Chaired by Dr. Cheryl
Liebling, Director of the Office of Reading and Language Arts at the Massachusetts Department of
Education and Ms. Risa Kaplan, Governor Romney’s Education Advisor2, the Adolescent Literacy Task
Force and the Early Literacy Subcommittee included members of the state’s Reading First Leadership
Team and high-level officials from key agencies including the Department of Education, the state Board
of Education, the Department of Early Education and Care, the Board of Higher Education, and the
University of Massachusetts. Members also included legislators, K-12 educators, including content area
specialists and interventionists, higher education faculty, and leaders from business, community
organizations, foundations, and local and statewide policy organizations.
Adolescent Literacy Task Force participants served on one of the following committees: vision, policies
and documents with subcommittees on standards, assessment, educator preparation and professional
development, and intervention; and communication. The Early Literacy Subcommittee prepared action
plan recommendations for grades pre-kindergarten – grade 3, while the Adolescent Literacy Task Force
prepared recommendations for grades 4-12. These recommendations are integrated into the five-year
literacy plan intended to strengthen and enhance current literacy initiatives to achieve the state's literacy
vision and goals.
Simultaneous with the development of the literacy plan, the Massachusetts Department of Education also
drafted a Framework for Leadership and Action (See Appendix B). This strategic planning tool,
consisting of a vision, goals, action principles, and levers, is intended to guide the state’s efforts to help
all students become prepared for the rigor of postsecondary education and full participation in America's
21st century economy. The Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan is aligned with the state’s strategic
2
Dr. Robert Costrell served as the co-chair of the task force from its inception until he left state service in October
2006. Ms. Risa Kaplan is serving as the co-chair of the task force from October 2006 until Governor Romney’s term
expires. The Department of Education will invite Governor-elect Deval Patrick to identify an education expert to
participate on the Massachusetts Literacy Team that will be convened in 2007.
6
planning tool's framework as well as findings from evidence-based literacy research and lessons learned
from the state's current literacy initiatives.
III.
CURRENT LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS
With the passage of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 followed by the No Child Left
Behind Act in 2001, Massachusetts established an accountability and technical assistance system to help
schools and districts realize achievement targets. The Commonwealth’s Curriculum Frameworks
(www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks) and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
(www.doe.mass.edu/mcas) are recognized nationally as among the most rigorous sets of standards and
assessments in the nation (Finn et al., 2006). The results of the state’s efforts to improve student literacy
achievement have been widely praised:

84% of Massachusetts’ grade 10 students earned their competency determination, a statewide
requirement for public high school graduation, by passing both the MCAS in ELA and
mathematics assessments on their first try in 2006, up from 81% in 2005 and 68% in 2001, the
first year high stakes were attached to the test
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2006/results/summary.pdf). Beginning with the graduating class
of 2003, passing the high school MCAS ELA assessment is a statewide requirement for
graduation from high school.

Not only are more students passing, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of
students doing well on MCAS: In 2000, 36 % of grade 10 students scored Proficient or Advanced
in ELA. In 2006, 69% of grade 10 students scored Proficient or Advanced on the ELA test.

Evidence that some performance gaps are closing was evident in the 2006 ELA data. In ELA at
grade 10, improvements in Proficient and Advanced performance since 2005 ranged from a fourpoint increase at grade 10 for white students to a 10-point increase at grade 10 for AfricanAmerican/black students. The performance gap between white and African American/black
students decreased by six points at grade 10, and the performance gap between white and
Hispanic students decreased by five points. Improvements in Proficient and Advanced
performance since 2005 were also identified for students with special needs who showed a sixpoint increase in ELA at grade 10 and for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students at grades 4
and 10.

In October 2006, the Massachusetts State Board of Education approved new regulations to
reinforce the concept that proficiency – not just passing – is the state’s goal for all students.
Beginning with the graduating class of 2010, all students will either need to score a minimum of
240 (Proficient) on the MCAS ELA exam at grade 10 or score at least 220 (Needs Improvement)
and complete an Educational Proficiency Plan in order to graduate. Further, among the
requirements to graduate with a Certificate of Mastery, students must not only achieve a
Proficient or Advanced rating on MCAS in ELA, but also maintain a 3.0 average in grades 11 and
12, demonstrate proficiency in writing on an assessment identified by the Department of
Education, and either complete a high school curriculum designed to prepare students for college
or college-readiness, or earn a Certification of Occupational Proficiency. The goal of these
regulations is to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the skills they need to be
successful in postsecondary education and the workforce.

At the early elementary level, Massachusetts’ Reading First students in grades 1-3 demonstrated
improvement in reading achievement at each of grades 1, 2, and 3 and for targeted subgroups at
7
grade 3 for each of the first two years of the project, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.3 This early
positive performance enabled the state to receive an incentive grant from the U.S. Department of
Education. Massachusetts was the only state to qualify for this award for the period July 1, 2004
– June 30, 2005.

At the secondary and elementary levels, Massachusetts’ students outperform students in other
states on national measures such as the SAT and the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). SAT scores of high school students have improved each year through 2005
and exceed both regional and national averages. Scores of Massachusetts’ students in grades 4
and 8 on the NAEP have improved significantly since 1992 and consistently rank among the
highest in the nation.

New Skills for a New Economy (MassInc., 2001) commended the Massachusetts adult and family
literacy system for enabling adult students, including some 8,000 parents of children under 18, to
achieve positive outcomes including learning gains, high school credentials, and job placement.
The same report noted that a child’s chance of success in school is greatly affected by the parent’s
educational level, attitude toward learning and economic stability
(http://www.massinc.org/index.php?id=60).
Taken as a whole, Massachusetts’ students appear to be doing well in literacy achievement. On both
NAEP (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/) and MCAS
(www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2005/results/summary.pdf), there has been slow, but steady progress over the
past 10 years in narrowing the achievement gaps between socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups and
between students with and without disabilities. Despite these positive trends, far too many students in
Massachusetts continue to struggle to achieve proficiency in their use of reading, writing, and language
development skills.
Data from the 2006 MCAS reveals that the pace of improvement in reading and ELA for grades 3-8 has
slowed, remained flat, or declined from previous years. The percentage of grade 3 students scoring
Proficient or Advanced in ELA at grade 3 declined from 62% in 2005 to 58% in 2006. The percentage of
grade 4 students scoring Proficient or Advanced in ELA remained unchanged at 50%, and 65% of
students at grade 7 scored proficient or advanced in ELA, down 1 point since 2005. In 2005, over half of
the students failed to reach the proficient level in reading at grades 4 and 8 on NAEP. On the 2006 SAT in
English, the state’s students dropped 7 points to an average of 513.
In October 2006, 130 of the state’s 234 districts have one or more schools that were identified for
improvement or corrective action as part of the state’s accountability system under No Child Left Behind.
Nine of these districts have schools that were identified for aggregate performance and the remainder had
schools that were identified for subgroup performance. Of those districts with schools identified for
subgroup performance, 23 were identified for performance in ELA only and another 52 were identified
for performance in both mathematics and ELA. Without improvements in its literacy initiatives,
Massachusetts will not be able to sustain its progress and meet its goal of having every student perform at
the proficient or advanced levels on state and national tests by 2014. It is for this reason that
Massachusetts has developed a literacy plan.
Demographers report that despite overall population loss in the Commonwealth during the past decade,
the immigrant population is growing. While the Hispanic community is currently the fastest growing
demographic group in the Commonwealth with a 2.2% increase in the student population in the past five
years, residents from Southeast Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe comprise a substantial part of the
3
The Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) is a standardized, norm-referenced assessment used to
report outcomes data for grades 1-3 in Reading First schools.
8
immigrant population, particularly in low-income urban districts. Since 2001, the percentage of students
whose first language is not English has risen 1.1%, and those identified as Limited English Proficient
(LEP) has increased .7%. During the same period, the percentage of white students in the
Commonwealth’s schools has decreased 3.5%, and the percentage of students identified as low income
has increased 3.1%. Massachusetts has thousands of students who are not yet proficient in reading and
writing, with a disproportionate number of these students identified as students with special needs, LEP,
or members of the state’s predominant racial and ethnic minorities.
Table 1 shows the 2005 percentages of students at grades 4 and 8 for NAEP and Table 2 shows the 2006
percentages of students for MCAS ELA, disaggregated by low income, race, ethnicity, language and
disability status, who scored below the proficient level. Grade 10 students decreased the percentage of
students scoring at needs improvement or warning/failure in the aggregate and for all subgroups. With a
few exceptions, the performance of students at grades 3, 4, and 7 was either unchanged from 2005 or
showed increases in the percentages of students scoring at needs improvement or warning/failure.
Table 1. NAEP Results for Reading, Grades 4 and 8, 2005
Percentages of Massachusetts’ Students Scoring at Basic or Below
Grade 4
Grade 8
Group
All Students
African-American/Black
Hispanic
Students with Disabilities
Students with Limited English Proficiency
56%
80%
89%
83%
89%
56%
82%
85%
87%
98%
Table 2. MCAS Results for English Language Arts, 2006
Percentage of Massachusetts’ Students Scoring at Needs Improvement or Warning/Failure
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 7
Grade 10
42%
64%
39%
72%
34%
71%
80%
65%
50%
73%
42%
76%
44%
84%
86%
73%
35%
57%
30%
65%
28%
75%
85%
59%
31%
53%
27%
61%
24%
71%
87%
55%
Group
All Students
African-American/Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
White
Students with Disabilities
Students with Limited English Proficiency
Low Income
The continuing discrepancies in the performance of African-American/Black students, Hispanic students,
students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and low income students underscore
the need for a well-articulated, cohesive PreK-12 literacy plan.
In addition to the continuing performance gaps in the literacy skills of targeted subgroups, it is becoming
increasingly clear that far too many students graduate from high school without the reading and writing
skills that they need to be productive members of 21st century American society and the global economy.
9
In addition, many of these students achieve proficiency on the state’s MCAS assessments based on 10th
grade standards and yet struggle with college-level reading and writing across the content areas.
Today, more than ever, many more students need to graduate from high school ready for postsecondary
education that will prepare them to participate fully in the 21st century economy. High school graduates
are facing an increased need for a high degree of literacy, including the capacity to comprehend complex
text and write clearly and precisely. Jobs that were once available to dropouts and high school graduates
are disappearing rapidly. A recent survey of employers by the Conference Board (Casner-Lotto &
Barrington, 2006) found high school graduates to be “deficient” in written communication, reading
comprehension, critical thinking and problem solving, and professionalism and work ethics. The 25
fastest growing professions have far greater than average literacy demands, while the 25 fastest declining
professions have lower than average literacy demands (Barton, 2000; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Kamil,
2003).
In comparison with students in other countries, American students are performing increasingly poorly as
they enter the later years of schooling, when they must read and write discipline-specific, content area
expository text (Kamil, 2003). ACT’s 2006 report on college readiness in reading concurs with this:
“College readiness – the level of preparation students need in order to be ready to enroll and succeed
without remediation in credit-bearing entry-level coursework at a two- or four-year institution, trade
school, or technical school – is currently inadequate and should be an expectation for all high school
students” (ACT, 2006a, p.3). Further, ACT concludes:

Student readiness for college-level reading is at its lowest point in more than a decade.

State standards in high school reading are insufficient or nonexistent. Students are not being
asked to meet specific, rigorous reading standards during their high school years. Most states
define standards in reading only through the eighth grade.

Not enough high school teachers are teaching reading skills or strategies and many students are
victims of teachers’ low expectations.
It is also clear that “reading proficiency is just half of the literacy picture…increasing students’ writing
abilities increases their literacy abilities which, in turn, increases the likelihood that students will stay in
school and graduate” (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006b, p.1). The STAND UP Coalition notes
that more than 3,000 students drop out of high school every day, often because they do not have the
literacy skills necessary for success (ACT, 2006a). Massachusetts also is wrestling with high dropout
rates of high school students and must intervene more decisively to help students stay in school to acquire
the literacy skills that will be necessary for life-long learning.
Further, it is clear that students in colleges are not doing much better than many in high school. ACT
(2006b) reports the 2004 National Center for Education Statistics data that 11% of post-secondary
students are enrolled in remedial reading coursework. Here, too, Massachusetts knows first-hand the
severity of the problem. As indicated in Graph 1, data reported in 2004 reveals that only 29% of ninth
grade students earned an associate’s degree within three years or a bachelor’s degree within six years of
graduating from high school (http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pipeline/pipeline.pdf). Many
students in Massachusetts continue to graduate from high school without the reading and writing skills
they need to complete postsecondary education that will enable them to be fully productive in their
careers. This disparity underlies the recent changes in Massachusetts’ regulations setting higher standards
for achieving a competency determination at grade 10 and for academic recognition in the Certificate of
Mastery and Mastery with Distinction.
10
Graph 1: High School and College Completion Rates
High School and College Completion Rates
th
Percentage of 9 Grade Students Earning
Bachelor’s Degree
100%
80%
76%
68%
60%
52%
40% 40%
40%
Massachusetts
27% 29%
18%
20%
III.
United States
LITERACY VISION AND GOALS
0%
Graduate Start
HS
College
Finish
2 yrs
Earn
Degree
Sources: National Center for Public
Policy & Higher Education, Policy
Alert, 2004
IV. Literacy Vision, Goals, and Action Principles
Literacy Vision
The Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan’s vision, goals, and action principles are aligned with and
nested within the Massachusetts Department of Education's draft Framework for Leadership and Action
(see Appendix B). This framework envisions a time when all students in Massachusetts will succeed as
productive and contributing members of our democratic society and global economy. Massachusetts is
committed to working in partnership with policymakers, communities, parents, school districts, and
students to achieve this vision.
As noted in the introduction to this document, the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan defines literacy
as the ability to use reading, writing, and oral language skills to comprehend and communicate meaning
with clarity at school, in the workplace, at home, and in society. To achieve an adequate level of literacy
in the United States, individuals must also be sufficiently fluent in spoken English to enable the
integration of language and literacy skills and content knowledge. This represents a particular challenge
for English learners who are learning spoken English simultaneously with the development of literacy
skills.
Early literacy refers to the acquisition of foundational literacy skills and strategies. The development of
foundational reading skills in phonemic awareness, phonics and word study, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension is central to early literacy. Young students demonstrate their command of foundational
literacy skills and strategies when they read independently with comprehension a wide range of age- and
grade-appropriate narrative, expository, and persuasive texts. Early literacy is also evident when students
have acquired the foundational skills and strategies involved in planning, drafting, revising, and editing
11
compositions and are able to use these skills strategically to communicate meaning in expository reports,
simple essays that establish a personal point of view, personal narratives, and imaginative stories. To
communicate effectively with others, young students in the United States must also achieve fluency in
spoken English. It is fluency in spoken English that enables students to discuss text meaning with one
another, thereby scaffolding literacy development. In turn, it is the development of literacy skills that
supports greater facility in spoken English communicative competence. Beginning in the earliest grades,
the integration of language and literacy skills and strategies with developing content area knowledge
establishes the foundation for disciplinary literacy during the adolescent and adult years.
Adolescent literacy refers to the acquisition of reading and writing skills that are used to deepen
disciplinary content knowledge and share thinking with others at school, in the workplace, and at home.
Literate adolescents are motivated to use their language and literacy skills for authentic purposes that
revolve around developing content knowledge, clarifying thought, and communicating with others
(Schmoker, 2006). The development of literacy and thought are intertwined in the notion of contentspecific use of language and literacy skills, or disciplinary literacy (McConachie et. al., 2006). Literate
adolescents and adults use their language and literacy skills in ways unique to specific content, building
content knowledge simultaneously with developing their language, literacy, and thinking skills. Among
the skills that signify 21st century disciplinary literacy in the United States are the ability to read with
comprehension and write with clarity to: 1) acquire and share information in discipline-specific texts (i.e.,
science and mathematics articles and reports, historical documents, fiction, criticism, narrative and
personal letter writing, and business writing); 2) analyze the logic of arguments and distinguish between
fact and personal opinion, truth and propaganda in speeches, newspaper reporting and editorials, and
essays; 3) communicate using a range of communicative styles from informal communication used with
family members to more formal styles used in public presentations with unfamiliar audiences; 4) use
one’s literacy skills for personal enjoyment; 5) organize and express one’s thoughts and emotions; 6)
understand the impact of voice and style on the author’s communication of a message; and 7) fulfill the
obligations of the workplace and the responsibility to be an informed citizen who participates in the
democratic process.4
Literacy Goals
Consistent with the goals of the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Framework for Leadership &
Action, the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan supports the state’s realization of its literacy vision by
achieving the following three literacy goals:
Literacy Goal #1: Prevent the literacy achievement gap from starting
Without a doubt, it is easiest to prevent literacy achievement gaps from starting during the early literacy
years than it is to close achievement gaps once they have emerged. Since the late 1990s, the United
States has been engaged in a number of early language and literacy initiatives grounded in the findings of
evidence-based reading research that target the prevention of language and literacy achievement gaps,
especially during the PreK-3 years (August & Shanahan, 2006; National Institute for Literacy, 2006;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). These initiatives have helped to ground
the discussion of early literacy in the findings of research that have spanned a forty-year period.
In addition to the early literacy research, there is evidence to “demonstrate just how deeply pervasive and
ingrained are the intellectual and academic advantages that poor and minority students must overcome to
compete with their white and middle-class peers” (Tough, 2006, p. 46). The work of Hart and Risley
4
Thanks to Catherine Snow (personal communication) for her insight into elements of a definition of literacy.
12
(1995) has had a particularly strong impact in the understanding of the impact of the parent’s language on
the development of children’s language and thinking. They followed 42 families with newborn children
for three years and recorded all of the linguistic interactions of the child and parents. Among their
findings were that “by age 3, children whose parents were professionals had vocabularies of about 1,100
words and children whose parents were on welfare had vocabularies of about 525 words” (Tough, 2006,
p.47). The researchers concluded that the differences in the sizes of the children’s vocabularies most
clearly correlated with the number of words that the parents spoke to the children. Further, it was not
only the amount, but also the qualitative nature of the words and the complexity of the language directed
towards children that most clearly impacted young children’s intellectual development. Responding to
the need to help parents improve their communication with their children, family literacy programs
contribute to preventing the literacy achievement gap from emerging by helping parents communicate
effectively with their young children.
Massachusetts’ commitment to families and children to prevent literacy difficulties from emerging during
the early years is the basis of the state’s early literacy initiatives. The most significant of the current
Massachusetts Early Education and Care (EEC) initiatives for children ages 0-5 include:

Dissemination of Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (Early Childhood Advisory
Council, April 2003) based on the Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum
Framework’s pre-kindergarten/kindergarten standards. These guidelines are used by preschools
for planning curriculum and self-evaluation (http://www.eec.state.ma.us/kr_ta.aspx.)

Initial planning for a proposed state assessment system to ensure that all children 0-5 years of age
enrolled in child care, family day care, public school preschools or Head Start receive ongoing
progress reports on child development, access to early childhood screening for special needs, and
assessment of reading readiness skills including letter identification, print awareness,
phonological awareness, and expressive and receptive language.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation of preschools
that offer curricula that promotes language and literacy development.

Four Early Reading First projects intended to help children from at-risk communities enter
kindergarten with the necessary language, cognitive and early reading skills for continued success
in school. Early Reading First, a federally funded initiative, supports pre-kindergarten programs
that emphasize scientifically based curriculum and instructional approaches for oral language and
cognitive development, as well as reading readiness skills associated with phonological
awareness, print awareness, and alphabetic knowledge. Early Reading First programs also use
assessments including screening tools to identify young children at risk for reading difficulties.
The Massachusetts Department of Education has also implemented a number of early literacy and family
literacy initiatives that target the prevention of literacy achievement gaps. The most significant of these
initiatives include:

The Massachusetts Reading First Plan (MRFP) is a federally funded project that currently serves
88 K-3 public schools in 41 communities. This six-year project is building the capacity of
thousands of teachers in Massachusetts to deliver evidence-based reading instruction in five
areas: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The grant
provides extensive professional development on scientifically based reading instruction (SBRI),
funding for the purchase of curricula consistent with SBRI, formative and summative
assessments, school-based reading coaches who support teachers and administrators in their
13
efforts to implement high quality reading instruction, and an extensive statewide professional
development and technical assistance network of implementation facilitators. For further
information on the components of the Massachusetts Reading First Plan, please see Appendix C.

The John Silber Early Reading Initiative is a state-funded project that currently serves 34 K-3
public schools and provides grant support for the implementation of Reading First’s key
components.

The Massachusetts Early Literacy Intervention grant program provides support for districts to
train intervention teachers who deliver reading interventions for students in Grade 1. In summer
2006, the project funded Reading Recovery programs across the state for Reading Recovery
teacher training. In October 2006, additional grants were funded to support the costs of schoolbased Reading Recovery programs.

Kindergarten Development Grants, a state-funded project, currently support 128 full-day
kindergarten grants. Kindergarten guidelines for ELA and other subjects are under development,
and a draft document will be disseminated in 2007. All content area guidelines will include
literacy activities and recommended books. Once approved, the guidelines will be used in
curriculum planning in full-day kindergarten classrooms. Full-day kindergarten programs also
apply for accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. This
organization provides accreditation for kindergarten programs that meet specified standards for
curriculum and instructional approaches for language acquisition and early literacy.

Massachusetts’ Title I funding supports reading instruction in many communities across the state.
In particular, Title I’s annual conference brings over a thousand educators together to learn about
best practices in reading instruction. In addition, Massachusetts is one of three states serving as
pilot sites for the federally funded Expanding the Reach of Scientifically Based Reading Research
(ETR) project. This project provides substantial professional development on scientifically based
reading instruction to teachers in Title I schools that do not receive Reading First funding.
Massachusetts currently has seven schools in three districts that participate in this project.

Massachusetts’ Even Start Family Literacy Program is a federally funded project that supports a
comprehensive and integrated approach to the intergenerational transfer of literacy from parents
to their children from birth. Programs include the following components: adult basic education,
early childhood education, parenting, interactive literacy activities, and home visiting. This
program supports parents in becoming partners in their child’s education, prepares children for
success in school, and enables parents and their children to develop a strong educational
foundation.

The Pathways to Family Success pilot project of the Massachusetts Family Literacy Consortium
(http://www.doe.mass.edu/familylit) supports communities that have local partnerships focused
on the development of a comprehensive community plan for coordinating and integrating early
childhood education, school-based education, adult education, parenting and family support,
employment services, and health and human services. The goal of these partnerships is to help
families in need move along a pathway to success by integrating intergenerational literacy and
support services.

Adult Basic Education (ABE) funding supports family literacy activities at Community Adult
Learning Centers across the Commonwealth.
14

In 2005, Massachusetts’ Office of Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement (OLAAA)
distributed guidelines for the use of the Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA)
based on the Massachusetts English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO)
to plan instruction and make decisions regarding language proficiency classification of English
learners. This document provides guidance to districts as to the number of hours per day an
English learner should receive of language and literacy instruction based on his/her English
language proficiency level.
While it may be easiest to prevent literacy achievement gaps from emerging during the early literacy
years, it is also imperative that educators continue to work to prevent literacy achievement gaps from
developing throughout the upper elementary and secondary school years. The prevention of literacy
difficulties does not end when students begin middle school. Indeed, adolescent literacy advocacy
organizations including the National Governor's Association (Berman & Biancarosa, 2005), the Alliance
for Excellent Education (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004), the National Association of Secondary School
Principals (2005), and the International Reading Association (1999), uniformly recommend
comprehensive language and literacy instruction for all adolescents that includes daily literacy skills
instruction integrated with content area teaching.
To continue to prevent literacy achievement gaps from emerging during the adolescent years,
Massachusetts’ current adolescent literacy initiatives emphasize literacy instruction integrated with
content area teaching and interventions for struggling readers:

The Massachusetts Middle and High School Reading Initiative, now in its fourth year with the
support of federal special education funding, has thus far funded 92 middle and high schools that
are committed to improving adolescent literacy achievement. The project began in 2002 with the
development of the Massachusetts Secondary Reading Framework (see Appendix E). This
framework includes three key components: reading instruction for all students, additional
intervention programs for struggling readers, and a comprehensive reading assessment system.
The model’s school-wide approach is based on eight fundamental principles: 1) involvement of
all staff in literacy instruction; 2) a focus on reading across the content areas; 3) multiple
interventions for struggling readers; 4) professional development for all staff; 5) adequate time
for reading and writing in the school schedule; 6) flexible grouping patterns; 7) assessment that
drives instruction; and 8) leadership support and guidance. Recipient schools receive small
planning grants to form reading leadership teams and to develop a school profile of student
reading needs and current practices and a related school action plan. Schools come together in
network meetings to discuss current research on adolescent literacy and share their efforts to
improve adolescent literacy achievement. In succeeding years, schools receive small grants to
implement one or more elements of their action plans.

In 2006, the Springfield and Chicopee public school districts received federally funded Striving
Readers’ grants for high school projects that include literacy instruction across the content areas
for all students.

The state’s annual Title I conference includes institutes on adolescent literacy topics. Topics of
recent institutes included secondary school reading assessments and interventions and reading
strategies across the content areas.

In 2005, Massachusetts implemented school leadership training for principals in middle and high
schools as well as elementary schools. This training is provided by the National Institute for
School Leaders (NISL) and includes leadership for literacy.
15

In 2004, the Commissioner of Education issued guidelines describing the skills and knowledge
necessary for teachers of English learners in Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) classrooms to
support content area learning across the curriculum. These guidelines describe teacher
competencies in four categories: second language learning and teaching, sheltering content
instruction, assessing speaking and listening, and reading and writing. The Department’s Office
of Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement (OLAAA) has developed and provided
training to help teachers acquire these competencies.
Literacy Goal #2: Close the literacy achievement gap where it exists
Once literacy achievement gaps emerge, they become increasingly difficult to close. Yet, the unfortunate
reality is that literacy achievement gaps are apparent even in the readiness for literacy of many
kindergarten children. The goal of closing literacy achievement gaps will not be achieved until all
students who evidence delays in language and literacy development receive intervention support in
addition to daily literacy instruction across the curriculum. A responsive and student-centered approach
to intervention instruction recognizes that student success in achieving literacy may well depend upon the
extent to which educators recognize the need to intervene and provide the targeted support for individual
students that addresses learning difficulties.
During the pre-kindergarten years, it is important that educators intervene early to provide intensive
support for children identified with significant language or cognitive delays and to provide targeted
support to build skills for success in the kindergarten program including developing vocabulary and
background knowledge, phonemic and print awareness, and familiarity with books (Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998).
During the early literacy years, intervention instruction should be provided to students who demonstrate
weaknesses in the foundational skills of learning to read. Intervention instruction is provided in addition
to daily literacy instruction and its intensity varies according to instructional needs based upon formative
data. In Massachusetts, Reading First and the John Silber Early Reading Initiative provide multiple tiers
of reading intervention support in addition to the daily core reading program. These projects rely on
formative, as well as outcomes data associated with each of the five dimensions of early reading to drive
decisions regarding appropriate interventions of sufficient intensity to close the literacy achievement gap
before it deepens for K-3 students. In addition, as noted above, the state supports Reading Recovery
tutorial instruction for students identified as at-risk for reading difficulties prior to the middle of Grade 1
through its Early Intervention Grants. Response to Intervention (RtI) in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 2004, it should be noted, also requires not only high quality daily reading instruction for
all students, but supplemental classroom intervention with differentiated attention to areas of need for
those students who have not acquired foundational reading skills. In addition to this supplemental
instruction, RtI also requires intensive individualized or small group intervention instruction specifically
targeted to those students who are most at risk for reading difficulties
(http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/IDEA_RTI_report.pdf).
During the adolescent literacy years, the urgency to provide intervention support in addition to daily
literacy instruction integrated with content area instruction intensifies. It is critical that middle and high
school students who are reading and writing more than one year below grade level participate in
intervention instruction to accelerate progress and close literacy gaps especially as related to the use of
literacy skills in content areas. Current Massachusetts’ initiatives that target support for striving readers
in middle and high schools include:
16

The Massachusetts Middle and High School Reading Initiative (see Appendix E) which
emphasizes the importance of providing interventions for adolescents with difficulties in
foundational reading and writing skills and in the use of these skills in content area learning.
Participating schools are urged to provide to middle and high school students who are reading
below grade level intervention support in individual or small group settings in addition to daily
literacy instruction integrated with content area teaching. Depending upon the nature of the
difficulty as identified by formative assessments, intervention instruction should be provided by
reading specialists, teachers or tutors trained in specific intervention approaches, Title 1 teachers,
special education teachers, English Language Development (ELD) teachers, or literacy coaches
and be focused on bolstering foundational reading and language skills in word level knowledge,
fluency, background knowledge and vocabulary, linguistic knowledge, and comprehension
strategies.

A state-funded Academic Support Program which assists high school students failing, or in
danger of failing, the ELA and mathematics graduation exit exams.

The federally funded Striving Readers projects in the Springfield and Chicopee public schools
include technology-based reading interventions for striving readers in high school.

The state mandated development of Individual Student Success Plans (ISSPs) in districts with
more than 20% of students scoring below proficient on MCAS. These ISSPs must be targeted to
each student’s needs and include instructional strategies to help students master literacy skills and
knowledge necessary to meet the Grade 10 standards.
Literacy Goal #3: Challenge all students to proficient and advanced literacy
As compelling as the statistics are regarding the imperative to prevent literacy achievement gaps from
starting and close literacy achievement gaps once they emerge, it is also clear that Massachusetts must
help many more students achieve proficient and advanced literacy in their use of reading and writing
skills. The growing demands of the knowledge-based global economy suggest that many more people
must become sophisticated in their use of language and literacy skills in support of content knowledge if
they are to be productive and contributing members of 21st century society. Supporting advanced literacy
begins early in a PreK-3 curriculum that encourages reading of high quality narrative, expository, and
persuasive text integrated with writing and discussion along with projects that showcase advanced literacy
skills. Success in achieving advanced literacy during the early years sets many students on pathways
toward advanced disciplinary literacy in middle and high school as well as success in post-secondary
education. Supporting curricula and instructional approaches for adolescents that encourage the use of
reading, writing, and discussion for authentic purposes across disciplines will prepare many more students
for success in the college and university curriculum and should result in a decreased need for remedial
courses at the college level.
This goal is critical because, as ACT notes (2006b), far too few middle and high school students are on
target to be ready for college-level reading. ACT has developed a set of college readiness benchmarks
called EXPLORE. Based on their analysis of the EXPLORE readiness for college indicator, ACT
indicates that only “43% of 2006 EXPLORE-tested eighth- and ninth-graders are on target to be ready for
college-level reading” (ACT, 2006b, p.2). This percentage, they note, drops by the time students reach
the twelfth grade. The percentages are considerably small for targeted subgroups including males, African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans.
17
It is no wonder, then, that “42% of community college freshmen and 20% of freshmen in four-year
institutions enroll in at least one remedial course…The United States spends over $1.4 billion each year to
provide community college remediation education for recent high school graduates who did not acquire
the basic skills necessary to succeed in college or at work” (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006a,
p.1). Consistent with the national data, the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education reported that 61.5%
of students in Massachusetts’ public community colleges were enrolled in at least one remedial course in
the fall of 2005.5
To achieve the goal of proficiency and advanced literacy, the Massachusetts State Board of Education, as
noted on pp.5-6, has recently approved new regulations for high school graduation to increase the
percentages of students who not only pass MCAS at Grade 10, but also achieve proficiency or beyond.
The state is working with its partners in the American Diploma Project of Achieve, Inc., higher education,
and the business community to create access to and incentives for students to complete challenging
coursework in high school (Massachusetts High School Reform Alliance, 2005). This work includes:
alignment of the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for high school courses with the expectations for
college-level reading and writing across the content areas and workplace literacy; development of
guidance regarding high school curricula that is well aligned with the state’s Curriculum Frameworks
including the Vocational/Technical Curriculum Framework; and creation of a linked K-16 data system for
the Department of Education and the Board of Higher Education that will enable analysis of MCAS
proficiency data with respect to student readiness for post-secondary education. Of utmost importance to
improvements in disciplinary literacy will be standards, assessments, and aligned curricula and
instructional approaches for middle and high school students that focus on the reading and writing of
complex texts unique to specific content areas and occupations.
It is also important to bear in mind that families pass literacy skills from one generation to the next.
According to the National Survey of America’s College Students (American Institutes of Research,
2003), the literacy of children whose parents completed college or attended graduate school was
significantly higher than the literacy of students whose parents ended their formal education after
completing a GED or graduating from high school. The importance of helping parents increase their own
literacy in order to promote the intergenerational transfer of literacy to their children is a major goal of
family literacy programs in Massachusetts.
Action Principles
Consistent with the action principles of the Massachusetts Framework for Leadership and Action, the
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan has adopted four principles as the philosophical foundation of the
state’s strategic priorities to create a student-centered, standards-based, and research-informed language
and literacy program across the Commonwealth:
Action Principle 1: Promote high standards and accountability for results
Establishing and continuously improving the set of literacy standards that defines the skills that students
should have at each grade level is the starting point for assessing proficiency and aligning curriculum and
instructional approaches to create a coherent system of literacy education. The Massachusetts English
Language Arts (ELA) Curriculum Framework (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001, 2004)
identifies the knowledge and skills that students must have in order to be proficient. The Framework’s 27
standards reflect the conclusions of recent comprehensive reports that synthesize the findings of 40 years
5
Personal communication from Andrea Kelley, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Policy, Massachusetts
Board of Higher Education, November 28, 2006.
18
of literacy research (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; National Reading Panel, 2000) in the five major
components of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics and word study, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension), as well as oral and written language. Currently, the Massachusetts ELA Curriculum
Framework provides grade level standards for Grades 3-8 in the areas of vocabulary, reading, and
literature.
A commitment to helping all students become proficient in their use of literacy skills begins with
continuous improvement of the content standards. The Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan recognizes
the critical role of content standards in defining what students should know and be able to do as they
acquire literacy skills and gain proficiency in using literacy skills for cognitive and communicative
purposes. Although the Commonwealth’s Curriculum Frameworks (www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks) are
recognized nationally as a model for other states, the challenge is to continue to refine the frameworks to
improve their utility as the basis for assessment of student proficiency, programmatic curriculum and
instructional alignment at the school and district level, and strong alignment with college expectations.
As an indicator of what students know and are able to do, the standards-based outcomes component of the
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) (www.doe.mass.edu/mcas) is recognized
nationally as among the most rigorous summative assessment systems in the nation. To become truly
comprehensive in its capacity to provide optimal information to schools and districts for instructional
planning, however, the MCAS must include more diverse reading and writing tasks across all content
domains. Such tasks would ensure that literacy skills associated with the expository text are part of the
ELA assessment and that other content area assessments also include reading and writing skills essential
to learning and sharing information in specific disciplines.
It is also important that Massachusetts provide guidance to districts regarding the use of formative
assessments that are aligned with the state’s standards-based outcomes assessment. The linkage of the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks to formative and summative assessments is fundamental to a
responsive approach to instruction that is focused on helping every student become literate. A responsive
education links individual student data from formative, classroom-based assessments, including progress
monitoring, diagnostic assessment, and other assessments that provide an indication as to whether
students are making progress toward proficiency on MCAS, with specified curriculum and instructional
approaches that will help every student achieve success. This alignment of standards, assessments,
curriculum, and instruction lies at the heart of differentiated instruction for individual students.
The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and MCAS assessment system are also the basis of the
state’s school and district system of accountability. This aligns with the NCLB goal that all students
achieve proficiency in ELA and mathematics by 2014. One important purpose of the Accountability and
Targeted Assistance (ATA) unit of the Department of Education is to identify schools that have not met
performance targets defined by Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. As noted earlier, 230 districts in
Massachusetts have currently been identified for improvement, nine of which are identified in the
aggregate and the remainder for subgroups. Of these, 75 are identified for improvement in ELA.
The state’s commitment to accountability also includes a commitment to targeted assistance that helps
underperforming schools examine student performance, student participation, and instructional or
organizational factors that may be contributing to weaknesses in student proficiency. Targeted assistance
includes review of plans for school improvement and a determination as to whether conditions exist that
will support school improvement. A subsequent fact finding team provides an in-depth diagnosis of the
school’s strengths and areas for improvement, focusing on the causes of low performance. The
Massachusetts Department of Education’s ATA school and district improvement support staff members
19
provide oversight in the implementation of school improvement plans, and turnaround partners work with
underperforming districts and schools to improve literacy instruction.
Action Principle 2: Identify and communicate what works
A responsive approach to literacy instruction is not only standards-based and informed by research, but
also student-centered. It recognizes the critical nature of active engagement and self-motivation in
successful achievement, while holding all students to high academic standards. What works for some
students may not work for others, so educators must be fully informed about all curricula that is wellaligned with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and knowledgeable about instructional
approaches informed by research on effectiveness with students of varying academic needs. Regardless
of grade level or course, decisions regarding curriculum and instruction should be based on the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and evidence of effectiveness and alignment with the
recommendations of major national documents.
All students should be challenged to not only acquire skills, but to use these skills strategically when
comprehending texts and writing in daily literacy instruction across the disciplines, participating in
discussion, and presenting or sharing information to others. Those with advanced literacy skills should
have daily assignments that challenge them to read and write more complex texts that make use of
sophisticated literacy skills and strategies. Those students who struggle to learn to read and write or to
use reading and writing to learn content benefit from daily intervention instruction that focuses on
foundation literacy skills and strategies in addition to scaffolded literacy instruction across the content
areas. Due to the particular challenges that English learners face in learning English simultaneously with
content instruction, these students need instructional time for English Language Development (ELD) as
well as daily literacy instruction that integrates English language development and literacy skills in
Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) settings.
Action Principle 3: Build capacity at all levels
Implementing responsive literacy instruction requires highly qualified educators who are knowledgeable
about the teaching of language, literacy, and thinking skills and committed to integrating literacy skills
and content instruction. During the early literacy years, classroom teachers, literacy specialists and
coaches, English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, and special education teachers must be fully
knowledgeable about research-informed instruction and confident in their abilities to teach students to
read and write as well as to use oral and written language for effective communication. All teachers must
be fully knowledgeable about evidence-based practices in the five critical dimensions of foundational
reading skills, writing instruction, and language development.
During the adolescent literacy years, content area teachers must be knowledgeable about literacy skills
and strategies used in particular disciplines, able to integrate language and literacy skills instruction and
content area teaching, and prepared to shelter content for English learners. The availability of licensed
literacy specialists and coaches and ESL and special education staff in middle and high schools
contributes to the capacity of the state to deliver a high quality language and literacy program for all
students.
School and district administrators in pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle, and high schools must be
knowledgeable about evidence-based literacy instruction. The role of literacy leaders is critical to the
success of the state’s PreK-12 Literacy Plan, and school and district leaders must be prepared to lead
educators in implementing practices consistent with language and literacy research recommendations.
20
Finally, the availability of Massachusetts Department of Education staff of experts in language and
literacy who plan and provide ongoing professional development and technical support to district and
school educators contributes further to the coherence of the state’s efforts to help educators implement
effective literacy instruction across the state. The vision of highly qualified educators requires the
collaboration of The Board of Higher Education, the University of Massachusetts and other institutions of
higher education, the Department of Education’s Office of Teacher Licensure, other Department of
Education offices that provide ongoing professional development in language development and literacy,
the Department of Early Education and Care, and professional development consultants across
Massachusetts.
Action Principle 4: Partner with others to create a statewide network of literacy leaders
committed to addressing the barriers to literacy
Building a consistent and coherent literacy policy to achieve Massachusetts’ literacy vision also requires a
broad-based leadership for literacy that shares the commitment to work together to achieve a common
literacy vision. This broad-based leadership for literacy includes policymakers, educators, institutions of
higher education, business and community literacy organization leaders, and families working towards
common goals and disseminating common messages regarding the scope of the literacy issues in the state
and the plans to achieve Massachusetts’s literacy vision and goals. It also includes close partnerships with
other agencies that directly affect student welfare and share the same agenda including the Department of
Youth Services, the Department of Public Health, the Department of Social Services, the Department of
Early Education and Care, the Department of Transitional Assistance, and the Department of Workforce
Development. The Department of Education has cooperative agreements with these partners including
the comprehensive effort undertaken by the Massachusetts Family Literacy Consortium. Together, we can
leverage our resources to help our shared constituent groups. Some of these agencies may be represented
on the proposed permanent PreK-16 statewide literacy team. Representatives from the stakeholder groups
will advise the state on the implementation of the PreK-12 Literacy Plan, disseminate information, and
support the efforts of the state to improve literacy achievement across Massachusetts.
V.
Recommendations of the Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Based on the experience gained from implementing standards-based and research-informed assessments,
curriculum, and instruction as articulated in the four action principles, the following recommendations are
proposed to improve literacy achievement in Massachusetts. The recommendations are discussed with
respect to early literacy years of pre-kindergarten – grade 4 and the adolescent literacy years of grades 412. Once implemented, these recommendations and the action plans associated with them (see Section V)
will help Massachusetts achieve its literacy goals and vision for all students across the Commonwealth.
Recommendation 1: Re-examine the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and related
documents to ensure that they reflect current research recommendations regarding language and
literacy skills that PreK-12 students need to be proficient readers and writers across the content
areas. This includes: 1) revising the Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework
by grade level and course with special attention to the reading and writing of expository text; and 2)
revising the Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering,
History and Social Sciences, Arts, Foreign Languages, and Health to specify the integration of
disciplinary literacy skills and content area knowledge.
21

Revise the Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework.
The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks serve not only as the basis for assessments of proficiency,
but also as the basis for aligning curriculum and instruction with standards that are informed by the most
current national research and thinking about the knowledge and skills that students must have. The
Massachusetts English Language Arts (ELA) Curriculum Framework has not been revised since its
completion in 2001. Although selected reading and literature grade level standards for Grades 3-8 were
disseminated in 2004, they were drawn from the original 2001 document. There is a need to examine the
whole 2001 framework in light of current national research recommendations and to revise, where
appropriate, the framework to include grade level and course standards consistent with those
recommendations. This will be especially helpful for developing the grade level assessments required by
No Child Left Behind. One important issue for consideration is the extent to which the current ELA
framework addresses the skills of reading and writing expository, persuasive, and narrative text. Of
particular importance is articulating grade level and course writing standards, for it is becoming
increasingly clear that writing is the most neglected of the “3Rs” (College Board, 2003; Graham & Perin,
2006).
Early literacy. Because the ELA framework was originally structured for grade clusters (i.e., PreK-2,
3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, and 11-12), there are no grade level reading, writing, and language development
standards for K-3. Articulating these grade level standards will help educators align beginning reading
and writing curriculum and instruction as a means of preparing students for success in learning to read
and write. Of special note is the need to examine the current research on fluency, as the current standards
do not sufficiently address fluency skills. Further, there is a need to articulate the early skills of reading
and writing expository text as well as persuasive and narrative text.
There is also a need for articulated standards for language development and emergent reading and writing.
The National Early Literacy Panel (National Institute for Literacy, 2006) is currently investigating the
skills and abilities of children from birth to age five that predict later reading outcomes, and findings from
this research should inform the grade level revisions of the Massachusetts ELA standards for the prekindergarten and kindergarten years. The preliminary findings of the National Early Literacy Panel
suggest that the strongest evidence for predictors of success in learning to read during the elementary
school years exists for alphabet knowledge, rapid letter naming and other naming tasks, writing one’s
name, phonemic and phonological awareness, and phonological short-term memory. Other predictors that
show less consistent evidence as predictors of early literacy include oral language development and
concepts about print, as these variables do not always predict literacy outcomes once alphabet knowledge
and phonological awareness are controlled in scientific studies. The final results of this report will be
useful to the Department in its development of pre-kindergarten and kindergarten ELA content standards.
(http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/family/ncfl/search=%22national%20early%20literacy%20pan
el%22)
Once revised, the grade level ELA standards for PreK-3 will serve as the basis for assessments,
curriculum, and instruction that is both standards-based and informed by evidence-based research. These
more detailed standards will also help teachers implement curricula and instructional approaches that are
more student-centered because the continuum of learning to read, write, and speak will be more clearly
differentiated.
Adolescent literacy. Recently, the College Board (2006) published standards for college success to
encourage states and school districts to align educational programs with the definitions of college
readiness that are the basis of the College Board’s assessments and Advanced Placement Program.
Designed for grades 6-12, these include reading standards for comprehension of words, sentences, and
22
text components; use of prior knowledge, context, and language to comprehend texts; attention to the
author’s purpose, audience, and craft; and use of strategies to comprehend text. Writing standards address
rhetorical analysis and planning, generating content, drafting, evaluating and revising text, and editing for
technically sound text. The document also includes standards for speaking and listening that emphasize
the communication process, use of context in spoken communication, preparation and delivery of
presentations, and attentiveness to purpose as well as standards for media literacy.
A first step in the revision of the Massachusetts ELA Curriculum Framework for the adolescent years is,
therefore, to study the College Board English language arts standards as well as those developed by ACT
and Achieve, Inc., as aligned with current research recommendations. Following this review, the
Massachusetts ELA Curriculum Framework for the adolescent years should be revised to include
individual grade standards and course descriptions and to emphasize greater use of content based
expository text and the teaching of related literacy strategies.
It is certainly true that the quality of student work in everyday instruction is also an important indicator to
likely success in postsecondary education, and the ELA standards should be the basis for decisions
regarding the focus of curriculum and instruction. To this end, the revision of the ELA framework should
also include examples of aligned curricula in reading, writing, and oral language in which students use
their literacy skills when reading and writing a wide range of text types. It may also be useful to develop
sample syllabi, especially for English language arts courses in middle and high schools. It will also be
useful to publish collections of exemplary student work at various grade levels and for courses to
demonstrate performance standards for proficient and advanced work.
Once the ELA Curriculum Framework has been revised and approved, related documents including the
Massachusetts English Language Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO) for English learners,
guidelines for kindergarten English language arts, and standards for adult and vocational education should
be revised as well.
See p. 44 for the recommended steps to revise the ELA Curriculum Framework.

Revise the Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering,
History and Social Sciences, Arts, Foreign Languages, and Health to integrate disciplinary
literacy skills and content area knowledge.
In addition to the reexamination of the ELA Curriculum Framework, there is also a need to review and, if
appropriate, revise the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science &
Technology/Engineering, History and Social science, Arts, Foreign Languages, and Health to ensure that
they specify the reading, writing, and oral language knowledge and skills needed to acquire content
knowledge across the disciplines. This specification should be by grade level and course. As reported by
National Public Radio on November 1, 2006, many high schools around the country are now emphasizing
the need for all students to use their literacy skills and strategies in content area learning by increasing the
amount of disciplinary reading and writing assignments that are part of content area learning. While the
integration of literacy skills and content learning must begin long before high school, it is not until grade
5 and above that Massachusetts students are assessed in their ability to use their literacy skills to acquire
content knowledge. Specifying this integration within the frameworks will provide Massachusetts
educators with the guidance they need to align curriculum and instruction with disciplinary literacy
standards.
Adolescent literacy. Defining disciplinary literacy by grade level and course in all content area
frameworks is an important step towards the integration of literacy skills and content area knowledge.
23
Where appropriate, it is important to revise the curriculum content frameworks to embed disciplinary
literacy in introductory text, guiding principles, standards, and/or examples of instructional activities,
resources, and appendixes. The articulation of specific grade level literacy standards that are most
associated with particular disciplines will then become the foundation for improvements in integrated
literacy and content curricula and instructional approaches as well as the assessment of content
knowledge. This, in turn, will eventually impact expectations for students to read and write complex text
and make presentations to share ideas with others. Stronger preparation for the use of literacy skills
across content areas will result in improvements in proficiency across content domains and readiness for
postsecondary education and the work force.
To demonstrate the state’s commitment to integrate literacy skills and science content, the recently
updated Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Frameworks (Massachusetts Department of
Education, 2006c) includes the following Guiding Principle VI:
An effective science and technology/engineering program builds upon and develops
students’ literacy skills and knowledge. Literacy is integral to learning and engaging in
science and technology/engineering. Reading, writing, and communication skills are
necessary elements of learning and doing science…students should be supported to
effectively engage with and learn science through consistent opportunities to develop
literacy skills. Students should be able to use reading, writing, and communication skills
to enhance understanding of scientific text materials, communicate understanding of
ideas, and use logic and reasoning in scientific contexts… (p.13)
Inclusion of this guiding principle in the science standards provides a model for other content areas as a
first step is in integrating literacy skills and content knowledge across grade levels. Once the revised
versions of the Curriculum Frameworks have been approved, print and online versions should be
disseminated widely to serve as the basis for ongoing professional development on standards-based
curriculum and instructional alignment. Examples of appropriate curricula, instructional activities,
exemplary student work, and proficient student open-response answers from MCAS items associated with
specific standards will help educators align curriculum and instruction with the disciplinary literacy
principles and/or standards that are intended to prepare students for the reading and writing demands of
postsecondary education and the work place.
See p. 45 for the recommended steps to enhance content area frameworks by integrating disciplinary
literacy skills and content area knowledge.
Recommendation 2: Enhance the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) by: 1)
diversifying reading and writing tasks across the content areas on the annual standards-based
MCAS assessments; and 2) developing and disseminating guidance on the local use of literacyrelated formative assessments to gauge student progress toward proficiency on MCAS and inform
instructional decision-making.

Diversify the types of reading and writing tasks across the content areas on the annual
standards-based MCAS assessments in grades 3-8 and 10.
Among the most significant of the recommendations in Reading Next is the need to have a comprehensive
assessment system of summative and formative measures during the adolescent literacy years.
(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) is widely
praised for the rigor of the state’s standards-based assessments for grades 3-8 and 10. The recent decision
by the Massachusetts State Board of Education to require that students at grade 10 either achieve
24
proficiency on the ELA assessment or participate in coursework to improve literacy skills prior to high
school graduation is certainly a step in the right direction to prepare more students for postsecondary
education and the workforce. It is also critical that the state send a strong message that the integration of
literacy skills and content area teaching is central to improving proficiency on all MCAS assessments and
to ensuring that students are ready for postsecondary education and the workforce when they graduate
from high school. Whether the assessment of disciplinary literacy is reserved for local, formative
assessment or is included as part of content area standards-based assessments will require significant
discussion and consideration by representative groups of informed stakeholders. The decision as to how
to proceed will have substantial consequences for the teaching of literacy skills integrated with content
area knowledge in Massachusetts.
Currently, Massachusetts’ statewide assessment developers deliberately minimize the reading level in the
mathematics, science, and history assessments in order to obtain a true measure of content knowledge,
reserving reading comprehension and writing the ELA assessments. While this is a common practice in
large-scale assessment, it may not mirror the actual reading demands that students encounter in school,
work, and society. As noted by Michael Kamil in his keynote presentation at the orientation meeting of
the Adolescent Literacy Task Force and Early Literacy Subcommittee in April 2006, a comparison of a
sample of science MCAS questions to the demands of content area textbooks suggests that textbook
reading demands are far more substantial than are the reading demands of the current MCAS assessment.
How competent students are in using their reading and writing skills when comprehending or composing
expository text is critical to their ability to use that information for communicative and cognitive
purposes. Adding literacy standards to the content area frameworks will open the door for local or
statewide assessments that measure both accuracy of content and effectiveness of expression. Increasing
the proportion of expository text passages in the grade level science, mathematics, history and social
studies assessments will reinforce the importance of comprehending complex, expository text. This
important modification in MCAS will contribute to improvements in proficiency on all standards-based
assessments and prepare students for the reading and writing of complex, content-driven texts in
postsecondary education and the workforce.
See p.46 for the recommended steps to diversify text types on MCAS outcomes assessments.

Provide guidance on the use of literacy-related formative assessments to gauge student
progress toward proficiency on MCAS and inform instructional decision-making
A truly responsive educational system uses its standards and assessment system not only to influence
programmatic decisions based on outcomes data, but also to target the needs of individual students. Use
of formative data as the basis for targeted curriculum content and instructional support will enable many
more students to achieve proficiency and beyond. Based on an extensive literature review, Black and
Dylan conclude, “Firm evidence shows that formative assessment is an essential component of classroom
work and can raise standards of achievement”(Black & Dylan, 1998, p.139).
Early literacy. Throughout schooling, formative assessments support individual student success by
helping educators tailor instruction to instructional needs. Further, when formative assessments are well
aligned with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the MCAS summative assessment, they
should serve as indicators of likely proficiency on the annual MCAS assessments beginning in grade 3.
During the pre-kindergarten years, formative screening and diagnostic measures are especially useful in
the early identification of hearing impairments, expressive language and receptive vocabulary delays, or
cognitive deficits (Snows, Burns, & Griffin, 1998. p. 319). There is a direct correlation between a child’s
spoken vocabulary during the pre-kindergarten years and later school success (Hart & Risley, 1995). Use
25
of diagnostic measures such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) in Early Reading First
and Head Start programs helps educators diagnose difficulties in expressive and receptive vocabulary. In
addition, use of formative assessments that track phonological and print awareness and the rapid
identification of letter names are also helpful in identifying students who would benefit from early
intervention.
Massachusetts’ experience with the Massachusetts Reading First Plan and the John Silber Early Reading
Initiative also affirms the benefits of formative assessment. In addition to the use of MCAS at grade 3 as
the standards-based measure of proficiency and a standardized achievement test outcomes measure, both
of these projects utilize: 1) screening and progress monitoring assessments that provide benchmarks for
grade level performance to chart student progress toward attainment of intermediate skills; 2) diagnostic
measures to identify a student’s strengths and needs in specific sub-skills of proficient reading; 3) a normreferenced outcomes measure for students K-3 that provides pre and post-school year comparisons of
reading achievement; and 4) curriculum-based assessments. On the basis of data from these assessments,
educators place students in appropriate groups for instruction as well as provide interventions in addition
to daily classroom instruction. For further information on the Massachusetts Assessment Framework, K3, see Appendix D.
It is clear also that formative assessment is especially critical for subgroups of students who have a high
incidence of difficulty in learning to read and write English, including English learners. Beginning in
spring 2007, Massachusetts will administer a K-2 reading and writing assessment for English learners to
provide an indication of the reading and writing proficiency prior to grade 3.
What Massachusetts’ early literacy projects have not yet done is administer on a wide-scale computerized
adaptive formative assessments that are aligned with the MCAS summative assessments. Such
assessments will enable educators to identify instructional levels and determine whether students are
making adequate progress toward proficiency on MCAS or, in some cases, are exceeding proficiency for
their grade and are capable of reading at advanced levels. For example, some districts have begun to use
the Northwest Evaluation Association’s (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) formative
assessments. It is important to determine whether such assessments are appropriate for use in the early
literacy years and, if so, which assessments provide the most useful formative data that serves the purpose
of instructional decision making as well as guidance regarding likely proficiency at grade 3.
Adolescent literacy. The experience of constructing a comprehensive literacy assessment system for
the early literacy years has immediate applicability for the development of guidance regarding formative
literacy assessment during the adolescent literacy years. Currently, many middle and high schools in
Massachusetts do not use any uniform set of valid and reliable formative or outcomes reading or writing
assessments for all students other than the statewide MCAS assessments. While MCAS does identify
those students who are not proficient, it does not provide specific information about whether these
students are reading or writing at grade level, how far below grade level they may be, or why they are
struggling with reading or writing. It is also not designed to identify students who are performing above
grade level. The ability of educators to make well-informed decisions about programs, instructional
methods and materials, or professional development is enhanced by a well-delineated and aligned system
of formative and summative assessments. Middle and high schools will benefit from a recommended
assessment framework with respect to types of assessments, if not to specific assessments, as has been
implemented in the state’s Reading First and Silber schools.
Consistent with Reading First, the Massachusetts Middle and High School Reading Initiative (see
Appendix E) recommends the use of a comprehensive assessment system that provides both formative
data for instructional decision making and summative assessment for programmatic decisions. This
26
includes: 1) screening assessments such as a formal, group administered reading assessment that is
administered at the beginning of the school year to all students. Screening assessments can be summative
and formative in nature. As summative measures, screening assessments identify those students who may
benefit from intervention as well as those who require scaffolded instruction in content courses. As
formative measures, screening assessments may provide diagnostic information on specific skills with
which students are having difficulty; 2) progress monitoring assessments that are formative and include
curriculum-based assessment, off level testing using standardized measures, or benchmark assessments
aligned with skills that comprise the standards as assessed on MCAS. All students benefit from ongoing
progress monitoring, but students who struggle require frequent progress monitoring to determine if
interventions are helping to accelerate student progress; 3) in-depth diagnostic assessments that are
formative and provide substantial information on specific skills with which students struggle in each of
the predominant dimensions of reading: phonics and word study, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension
skills and strategies. Results from these assessments then determine the skill focus for interventions based
on individual student needs; and 4) outcomes assessments, including annual standardized testing and/or
MCAS assessments, to determine if students are making progress toward proficiency. Sometimes, the
results of annual outcomes assessments are used in conjunction with screening assessments to determine
placement in interventions during the following school year.
In addition, determinations of literacy strengths and needs must take into account the development of
academic language, especially for English learners. The Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment
(MEPA) is used to assess English learners’ proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening at
grades 3 and above (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005). MEPA data is used to plan an
instructional program for each English learner that is aligned with the Massachusetts English Language
Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes (ELPBO).
The Department of Education also recognizes that there is also a need for computerized, adaptive
formative assessments for the adolescent literacy years. As mentioned above for early literacy, some
districts are currently using NWEA’s Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) to target instruction for
adolescents and gauge progress toward proficiency on MCAS. These assessments can be administered as
many as four times/year and as such provide ongoing formative data for reading and language usage. It is
important to investigate the range of formative assessments that will best meet the needs of students in
Massachusetts and provide guidance to local districts regarding the use of these assessments. The entire
system of formative and summative assessments must be well aligned, and Proficient or Advanced scores
on MCAS at grade 10 must be highly correlated with success in postsecondary education and the
workforce. Towards this end, the assessment system must also include supplementary documents that
provide examples of performance at the Proficient and Advanced levels, helping educators and students at
every grade raise their expectations for achieving the highest levels of performance.
See p. 47 for the recommended steps to develop guidance regarding formative assessments.
Recommendation 3: Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation
support on: 1) foundational language and literacy skills; 2) disciplinary literacy; and 3) literacy
interventions for struggling readers and writers.
Massachusetts has long been recognized as a leader among the states for its innovations in curriculum and
instruction, and the Massachusetts Department of Education serves an important role by helping districts
and schools learn about best practices, share their knowledge with one another, and implement practices
with substantial records of success in improving student achievement. Further, in addition to identifying
underperforming schools, the Department of Education’s Accountability and Targeted Assistance (ATA)
unit and its turn-around partners including America’s Choice are providing direct technical support to
27
underperforming schools and districts to improve standards-based school improvement plans and
practices. The Department’s Office of Reading and Language Arts provides ongoing professional
development to schools and districts to assist the highest need communities in implementing literacy
practices known to be effective with particular populations of students.

Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on
foundational language and literacy skills.
Early literacy: The teaching of literacy skills and strategies begins during the pre-kindergarten years.
While expanding access to public pre-kindergarten and full day kindergarten programs is a noteworthy
goal to increase the time in which young children participate in early childhood education, it is the
literacy curricula and instructional practices in pre-kindergarten and full day kindergarten programs that
may be the decisive factors regarding preventing literacy gaps from emerging during the early years. In
addition to articulating what children ages birth to five should know and be able to do as predictors of
later literacy outcomes, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) (National Institute for Literacy, 2006)
is also examining the findings of scientific research to identify programs and interventions that contribute
to or inhibit gains in literacy skills linked to later outcomes. NELP has examined 191 studies in five
categories: 1) alphabetics and knowledge of print; 2) reading to and sharing books with children; 3) parent
and home programs for enhancing literacy; 4) preschool and kindergarten literacy programs; and 5)
language enhancement. Preliminary statistically significant findings indicate that explicit instruction in
letter naming, writing one’s name, phonemic and phonological awareness, and phonological short-term
memory are most predictive of early literacy. Oral language development and concepts about print are
not consistent predictors of early literacy, but they certainly contribute to successful reading, writing, and
spoken language comprehension and communication. Direct efforts to teach oral language skills have
demonstrated positive impact on oral language development and, in a small number of studies, a positive
impact on phonological development as well. Reading aloud to children is reported to have a moderate
impact on oral language and print awareness. Participation in parent and home family literacy programs
appears to have a positive impact on oral language and print and book awareness by helping parents
extend literacy learning into daily routines. Preschool and kindergarten programs have the most
significant positive impact on general readiness rather than reading achievement directly.
Consistent with these findings and earlier recommendations for family literacy and preschool programs
that enhance the achievement of developmental milestones in language and literacy acquisition (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998), the Massachusetts Preschool Guidelines (2003) provide recommendations for
pre-kindergarten programs that prepare students for success in language and literacy in kindergarten.
These guidelines recommend that the content of preschool programs emphasize oral language and
vocabulary development; reading readiness skills including phonemic and phonological awareness, and
print awareness including recognition, identification, and writing of the alphabet as well as build
familiarity with children’s literature.
Unfortunately, however, many children enter kindergarten without the prerequisite skills for success in
the kindergarten literacy program. For this reason, it is becoming increasingly clear that more aggressive
efforts must be taken in family literacy and preschool programs to prevent literacy achievement gaps from
emerging. These may include increases in resources and interagency partnerships and collaboration
among pre-kindergarten, family literacy, and kindergarten programs. Special attention must be paid to
helping parents communicate effectively with their children, building vocabulary and background
knowledge, encouraging discussion, and sharing books with children. During the pre-kindergarten years,
the focus of instruction is to provide targeted direct skills teaching of those skills that contribute to later
success in language and literacy: phonological skills, alphabetics, concepts of print, oral language and
concept development, writing, reading aloud to children, and engaging children in using spoken language
28
for a wide range of communicative purposes. Parents must be active partners with educators in these
efforts for it is the focus on critical literacy skills at home and in preschools that may well make the
difference in preventing literacy achievement gaps from emerging.
For English learners, the importance of a high quality preschool experience is critical to a strong
foundation for success in kindergarten. School-based language and literacy programs must be well
integrated with the child’s home language while building proficiency in English. The challenge is to
provide a culturally and linguistically responsive program that is both developmentally appropriate and
sufficiently rigorous in teaching both language development and emergent skills.
During the early literacy years, all young students acquire foundation skills and strategies for learning to
read and write in daily core literacy instruction. Massachusetts’ successful experience with the
Massachusetts Reading First Plan project and the John Silber Early Reading Initiative affirms the value of
basing reading curriculum and instruction on standards informed by evidence-based research. In the
highest need districts and schools in Massachusetts, Reading First has demonstrated its power as a model
of comprehensive reading instruction that emphasizes systematic and explicit skills instruction in five
dimensions of reading (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension
strategies). Students also benefit from daily opportunities to practice using those skills when reading a
wide range of authentic expository, narrative, and persuasive text, but it is clear that students must be able
to read independently these texts (i.e., can decode at least 90% of the words) and follow their reading with
discussion in which peers and teachers participate. A minimum of 90 minutes per day of core instruction
is provided by the classroom teacher in whole class and small, needs-based groups, and schools and
districts are encouraged to select core instructional materials based upon evidence of effectiveness.
Central to the effectiveness of the approach is a commitment to increasing the amount of time provided
for reading instruction and directing that instruction in a clear and explicit manner to the needs of
individual students.
In its perspective of comprehensive reading instruction, Reading First can serve as a model for
underperforming schools. In addition, although Reading First was constructed as a K-3 program, its
focus on core skills instruction and practice opportunities is also appropriate for students in grade 4 and
those in upper elementary and middle schools who are not reading at grade level. For additional
information regarding the components of core reading instruction during the early literacy years, see
Appendix C.
Despite its strength as a scientifically based program of reading instruction, it is clear that Reading First
has not fully articulated a comprehensive approach to language and literacy instruction at the elementary
level. A comprehensive early literacy program should also provide daily opportunities for skills
instruction in oral and written language and to practice using these skills when communicating meaning
to different audiences and for a variety of purposes.
There is a significant need to significantly increase the amount of time young children spend in direct
instruction on writing skills along with opportunities to practice using those skills when writing different
types of texts. Among its writing policy recommendations at the elementary level, the National Council
of Teachers of English (NCTE) (http://www.ncte.org/prog/writing/policy/110613.htm) calls for 1) more
daily time to learn to write and practice writing for a wide range of purposes across grade levels and
content areas; 2) use of technology to support writing and the presentation of learning; and 3) writing
across the content areas. Further, a recent review of research recommendations on the teaching of writing
argues for directed instruction in the skills of writing (MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006). A
comparison of Writers’ Workshop and the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model, for example,
found that the writing of elementary students in high poverty urban communities improves when students
29
have access to explicit strategy instruction including how to plan writing topics in advance, organize ideas
into a writing plan, upgrade plans as they write, learn genre-specific planning strategies, and ask questions
of themselves as they write (Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006).
In addition to a directed focus on writing instruction, the integration of literacy skills and language
development instruction enables the language arts to scaffold one another. The development of
competence in using academic language supports the acquisition of reading and writing skills, and the
development of literacy supports more sophisticated use of academic spoken language. This integration
is important for all learners, but especially critical for English learners and others who are simultaneously
learning to use academic spoken language and literacy skills for effective communication and
comprehension of a wide range of texts across content areas.
A recent review of research on language and literacy instruction for English learners by the Center on
Instruction (Francis et al., 2006a), for example, has concluded that English learners do benefit from
explicit instruction in the five dimensions of beginning reading articulated by the National Reading Panel
(2000): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension learning to
read. The report notes that phonemic awareness and phonics instruction enables many English learners to
achieve proficiency in decoding similar to that of native speakers. Further, significant opportunities to
build oral reading fluency helps English learners connect oral language and print, especially when English
learners are engaged in practicing oral reading with corrective feedback from fluent English speakers.
The more critical issue for many English learners is not decoding text, but comprehending it. Often,
English learners struggle with the development of academic language, and it is attention to the language
of books that is critical to the success of English learners in comprehending connected text in books.
Programs of instruction that emphasize the development of vocabulary and grammatical structures
commonly found in children’s texts along with comprehension strategies for self-monitoring of
understanding and summarization of main ideas are beneficial in promoting successful early literacy.
English learners also benefit from daily, multiple opportunities to engage in structured, academic talk
about books to improve spoken and written English skills simultaneously. Of note are recommendations
to provide independent reading at each student’s instructional level (i.e. students should be able to read
90% of the words in a text) followed by purposeful discussion with peers and adults.
These research-based recommendations should be incorporated into Massachusetts’ guidelines aligning
curriculum and instruction with standards and targeting instruction to the needs of individual English
learners based upon MEPA results (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2005). Further, analyses of
the effectiveness of specified intervention approaches and programs for English learners available through
the What Works Clearinghouse (www.whatworks.ed.gov) provides another source of information to
guide decisions regarding appropriate selections of curricula with evidence of effectiveness in improving
reading achievement and/or language development.
As important as it is in a responsive educational system to provide targeted support for struggling readers
and writers, it is equally important to support elementary school students who have achieved proficiency
and beyond. Advanced students should have daily core instruction opportunities to enhance their reading
and writing skills in accelerated classroom instruction that includes reading more complex literature, book
study, research projects, and extensions of reading to include writing and creative presentations.
Cooperative learning projects further enhance the skills of students who work together to advance their
knowledge. Flexible grouping and grade acceleration policies allow students to move among language
arts or math groups based on their mastery of concepts. Differentiation of the curriculum is as vital for the
accelerated student as it is for struggling readers.
30
One of the most significant contributions of the Reading First and John Silber projects to improvements
in the teaching of early literacy skills in Massachusetts has been the availability of funding to support
ongoing and sustained professional development. Statewide meetings with nationally recognized experts,
a statewide network of implementation facilitators who help school and district educators implement
evidence-based practices, and school-based literacy coaches provide educators with multiple sources of
support for improving their teaching of reading. For further information about the state’s early literacy
professional development efforts, see Appendix C.
A challenge to the sustainability of improvements, however, is funding to disseminate information about
evidence-based literacy practices to additional underperforming schools. To date, approximately 25% of
all K-3 teachers in Massachusetts have had access to Reading First’s professional development or to
district dissemination efforts related to Reading First. To make regional professional development on
language and literacy practices available to many more of the educators in the state’s underperforming
elementary schools, substantial resources and collaboration with professional development providers
across the state will be required. The continued availability of funding for the purchase of well-aligned
curricula and assessments and support of the statewide implementation facilitator network and schoolbased literacy coaches requires a commitment on the part of Massachusetts to increase its support of
comprehensive early literacy programs.
See p. 48 for the recommended steps to identify and communicate information on standards-based and
evidence-informed instructional practices in foundational early literacy skills and strategies.

Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on
standards-based and evidence-informed adolescent literacy practices.
In its 1999 position statement, the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading
Association emphasized that although literacy growth is recognized as important, many middle and high
schools do not include reading instruction as part of a school wide focus for all students (Moore et. al.,
1999). Since that time, it has become increasingly clear that integrating language and literacy skills
instruction with content area teaching is essential to improving both literacy skills and the use of literacy
skills in acquiring content across the curriculum. It is for this reason that the Massachusetts Middle and
High Reading Initiative (see Appendix E) considers the involvement of all professional and
paraprofessional staff in daily literacy instruction across the content areas to be two of the eight critical
elements of a school wide approach to literacy.
Massachusetts’ school wide approach to literacy is consistent with the central instructional and
organizational improvements that are recommended to prevent and close literacy achievement gaps and to
challenge all students to proficiency and beyond (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). For this reason, the
National Governors Association recently recognized Massachusetts’ support of school wide literacy plans
as a model of promising state practices (Berman & Biancarosa, 2005, p.32). That being said, school wide
plans without district oversight run the danger of being either too repetitive or contradictory. For this
reason, greater consistency is achieved when districts are involved in school wide planning, promoting
consistency in plans across buildings. Effective literacy plans should delineate both instructional
approaches (e.g., curricula, pedagogy, and materials) as well as structural approaches (e.g., use of time,
use of facilities, and assignment of teachers).
One major benefit of a school wide planning model is to create a school climate in which secondary
school educators are committed to integrating literacy skills and strategies into the content area areas
(Berman & Biancarosa, 2005; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; National Association of State Boards of
31
Education, 2005). A distinction, however, is made between the responsibilities of the English language
arts teacher and those responsibilities of content teachers in other disciplines.
In middle and high schools, the primary responsibility for the teaching of literacy skills and strategies for
all students rests with the English language arts educator. In addition to reading, discussing, and writing
expository, persuasive, and narrative text, a responsive English language arts program recognizes that
many middle and high schools students benefit from continued instruction in structural analysis including
advanced spelling patterns, Latin and Greek roots and affixes, and word attack strategies for reading
complex, multi-syllabic words as well as practice in reading complex text fluently with appropriate speed,
accuracy, and expression.
All adolescent students, including those who are proficient and advanced readers and writers, also require
substantial support by English language arts teachers in the skills and strategies that support the
development of academic vocabulary and comprehension strategies. The major reports on the adolescent
literacy crisis in America urge the teaching of reading comprehension strategies in middle and high
schools: 1) self-monitoring of text comprehension; 2) cooperative learning; 3) graphic and semantic
organizers; 4) story structure questioning; 5) questioning and answering with feedback and correction; 6)
question generation; 7) summarization; and 8) integration of multiple strategies. (Alvermann, 2001;
Alverman & Rush, 2004; Berman & Biancarosa, 2005; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Jetton and Dole, 2004;
Kamil, 2003; Meltzer, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; Strickland & Alvermann, 2004; RAND,
2002). Research recommendations also assert that motivation and interest in reading are central to
success, so students should have ample opportunities to select the texts they read and to discuss their
reading with peers.
In addition to comprehension strategies, all middle and high school readers benefit from vocabulary
instruction. Research on effective vocabulary instruction for middle and high school students concludes:
1) there is no one best method for vocabulary instruction; 2) vocabulary must be learned through both
explicit, systematic instruction and incidental exposure; and 3) reading is the single most important factor
in increased word knowledge; that is, the more students read, the more they increase vocabulary
knowledge. Vocabulary instruction is most effective when: 1) words are taught in meaningful contexts
that convey the particular meanings relevant to the text; 2) a few words central to the context of the story
or expository text are taught; 3) vocabulary instruction is integrated with activation of prior knowledge; 4)
students are exposed to words many times; and 5) students are taught to analyze word parts (Baumann
and Kame’enui, 2004; Hiebert & Kamil, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000).
The recent publication of Writing Next (Graham & Perin, 2006) directs attention to the often-neglected
subject of writing instruction in middle and high schools. The report discusses research-based
recommendations for 11 elements of effective writing instruction in middle and high schools: 1) writing
strategies for planning, revising, and editing compositions; 2) strategies to summarize texts; 3)
collaborative writing in which students work together to plan, draft, revise, and edit compositions; 4)
specific product goals with expectations for completion; 5) the use of technology for writing assignments;
6) sentence combining techniques to encourage the writing of complex sentences; 7) prewriting to
generate ideas for compositions; 8) inquiry activities to engage students in data analysis as the basis for
organizing ideas and content; 9) process writing to extend skills instruction by writing for authentic
purposes and audiences; 10) models of exemplary writing for analysis and emulation; and 11) writing for
content learning. (Graham & Perin, 2006, p.3).
As important as the role of the English language arts instructional program is in diversifying the types of
texts read and written in middle and high schools and in teaching the specific language and literacy skills
identified above, it is also the responsibility of other content area teachers to integrate literacy skills and
32
strategies and content area teaching. This integration is central to improving the ability of students to
read, write, and discuss complex discipline-specific text. Disciplinary literacy lies at the heart of research
recommendations to improve academic achievement in middle and high schools (McConachie et. al.,
2006). Disciplinary literacy is based on the idea that the development of conceptual knowledge is
intimately linked to the use of those language and literacy skills most commonly employed by the
discipline. Five principles underlie disciplinary literacy: 1) knowledge and thinking must go hand in
hand; 2) learning is apprenticeship in which teachers build bridges between prior knowledge and new
information acquired in studying a topic; 3) teachers mentor students by modeling the processes of
acquiring information and sharing this information with others; 4) instruction and assessment drive each
other, and teachers re-teach when students need additional instruction; and 5) classroom culture socializes
intelligence when teachers expect students to be capable thinkers, readers, and writers.
Jetton and Alexander (2004) note that subject areas such as history, math, science, and the arts contain
specialized knowledge that is organized in a specific way, often in subject-matter domains. Teachers
must realize that the forms of texts that students read, along with their purposes, differ across domains.
Jetton and Alexander also note that content teachers face a paradox. They may use linguistically
challenging texts to facilitate learning, but they may not know how to design instruction that teaches
students literacy strategies simultaneously with content learning. Kamil (2006) describes the problem of
the ‘rational teacher’ who responds to the fact that students can’t read well by teaching the content in
other ways including reading textbooks aloud to students. However, when “teachers water down the
curriculum and demand less reading and writing when faced with students who experience difficulties
reading,” students lose an opportunity to develop the skills they will need for success in postsecondary
education and careers (National Association of State Boards of Education, 2005, p.24). This is a problem
for both proficient and struggling readers.
It is increasingly clear that middle and high school educators recognize the importance of disciplinary
literacy. For example, a recent issue of The Science Teacher provides literacy routines that can be
integrated into science instruction and activities to help students attend to the structure of expository text
(Creech & Hale, 2006; Montelongo et al., 2006). In Massachusetts, educators in the 92 schools that have
been participating in the Middle and High School Reading Initiative for the past three years have
embraced the notion of disciplinary literacy. The challenge now is to help these educators implement
exemplary disciplinary literacy practices as well as to continue to build awareness across the state as to
the importance of integrating literacy skills and content area knowledge.
The acquisition of disciplinary literacy is a special challenge for English learners who are acquiring
English language skills simultaneously with advancing content knowledge. Many English learners who
have learned to decode text during the K-3 period begin to fall behind in grade 4 or above when the
cognitive and linguistic demands of text become increasingly complex. Among the challenges that
educators face in helping English learners is the lack of appropriate and flexible program options and lack
of a strong and coherent research base on how to build literacy in English learners (Short & Fitzsimmons,
2006).
For many English learners, especially those who are newcomers in middle and high school, “the lack of
proficiency in academic language affects their ability to comprehend and analyze complex texts, limits
their ability to write and express themselves effectively, and can hinder their acquisition of content in all
academic areas” (Francis et. al., 2006b, p. 5). Research-based recommendations to support language and
literacy instruction for English learners include: 1) language and literacy skills instruction necessary for
content area learning; 2) instruction in academic language necessary for text comprehension; 3) direct and
explicit instruction to support their comprehension of challenging texts; 4) instruction in writing for
33
academic purposes; and 5) formative assessment of students’ strengths and needs and ongoing monitoring
of progress.
In Massachusetts, improving the literacy achievement of adolescent English learners is of the highest
priority. English learners receive instruction in English language development and literacy skills from
ESL specialists according to guidance on time, instructional approaches, and curricula provided by the
Office of Language Acquisition and Academic Achievement. They also participate in Sheltered English
Immersion programs (SEI) in which classroom content area teachers scaffold content instruction.
Secondary school teachers in schools with block scheduling may also be able to spend longer periods of
time with English learners and include more interactive and project-based assignments that engage
English learners simultaneously in English language development and the acquisition of literacy skills
along with content area knowledge.
It goes without saying that all students deserve a rich curriculum and many ways to develop literacy in the
broadest sense. Yet, there is a growing recognition that students who perform at the Proficient and the
Advanced levels on MCAS and in classroom assignments are not always challenged and need welldesigned curriculum and instruction in all content areas that will encourage higher levels of performance
(Tomlinson, 2005; Colangelo, et. al., 2004). Students who learn more readily may need advanced texts
and other instructional materials, faster pacing than their peers, and greater opportunities for developing
expertise through extended and multifaceted projects.
At the middle and high school levels, various forms of advanced placement exist, in the form of collegelevel courses, instructional materials, and exams designed by the College Board's Advanced Placement
(AP) program and the International Baccalaureate program. Dual or concurrent enrollment and tech prep
courses in which students take college courses while in high school are also available through
partnerships of colleges, universities, and districts. In addition, there is an ever-expanding array of oncomputer-based advanced courses for middle, high school, and college students (Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education, 2006).
Over the past decade, Massachusetts has had a number of disparate initiatives to serve advanced learners,
but has lacked a coordinated plan and reliable source of funding for these efforts. A state-funded Gifted
and Talented grant program has provided support to districts to examine advanced curricula and a federal
Javits grant has allowed the Department to partner with the University of Massachusetts and districts in
developing a state approach to serving advanced students, including coursework in this field for educators
The Department has worked with many low-income districts to establish Advanced Placement and preAP programs through grants from the federal Advanced Placement Incentive Program and, for a brief
period in the mid-1990s through a state-funded Advanced Placement grant program. A statewide dual
enrollment program allowing free access to college courses for advanced public high school students
existed from 1995 until 2001.
The widespread call for a more rigorous high school education and increasing emphasis on preparing all
K-12 students for postsecondary study provides a strong impetus for Massachusetts to include
consideration of the potentially advanced reader and writer into its literacy plan. Finally, to oversee a
long-term commitment to adolescent literacy in Massachusetts, it is recommended that the position of
Coordinator of Adolescent Literacy be established in the Office of Reading.
See p. 49 for the recommended steps to identify and communicate information regarding standards-based
and evidence-informed adolescent literacy practices.
34

Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on
standards-based and evidence-informed interventions for struggling readers and writers.
Early literacy. In addition to daily core language and literacy instruction for all students, elementary
students in Reading First and John Silber schools who are identified as at risk for reading difficulties on
formative and/or outcomes assessments also receive intervention instruction. Consistent with Response to
Intervention (RtI) in the reauthorized Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (International
Reading Association, 2004), students who are identified as substantially at risk receive the most intensive
interventions. The goal is to provide students with the least intrusive services in the most expeditious
manner, increasing the intensity of service when data indicate that the instructional program warrants
further modification. The availability of multiple tiers of support including core instruction, supplemental
and intensive intervention is a key feature of the early literacy initiatives that contributes to a responsive,
student-centered approach tailored to the needs of individual students. For further information on tiers of
intervention in Reading First, see Appendix C.
Adolescent literacy. Middle and high school students who have not attained mastery of early literacy
skills require interventions that target their specific needs. As with early literacy intervention, the
Response to Intervention (RtI) legislation calls for providing increasingly intensive interventions for the
most struggling of readers during the adolescent literacy years. Intervention practices for adolescents that
are supported by research include: 1) use data to inform instruction; 2) direct and explicit teaching of
reading strategies; 3) embedded strategies in subject matter content; 4) modeling the use of reading
strategies by “good” readers; 5) opportunities for choice of reading topics, texts, and difficulty; 6) use of
multiple texts on different topics and varying readability levels; 7) collaboration among students; and 8)
integration of writing and reading instruction and use of technology to improve reading comprehension
(Biancarosa & Snow, 2005). The University of Kansas’s Center for Research on Learning’s approach to
intervention recommends a Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) model that describes 5 levels of
increasing support for struggling readers and writers. In content classes, struggling readers and writers
receive enhanced content instruction (Level 1) or embedded strategy instruction (Level 2) to enhance
acquisition of literacy skills integrated with content area teaching. Students who are somewhat at risk
based upon formative data receive intensive strategy support in additional strategy classes (Level 3).
Those who are substantially at risk for literacy difficulties based upon formative data receive additional
intensive basic skills (Level 4), and those with substantial cognitive, language, and literacy deficits
receive therapeutic intervention on foundational language competencies (Level 5) (Lenz, Ehren, &
Deshler, 2005). The strongest interventions for struggling readers are those of sufficient intensity and
duration, which include strengthening word study skills, and direct and explicit instruction in vocabulary
and comprehension strategies (Linan-Thompson, 2006). Interventions are best delivered by reading
specialists, special educators, or other interventionists specifically trained to deliver particular
intervention programs that may be technology-based or delivered in tutorial or small group settings.
The challenge in intervention support for struggling adolescent readers is for instruction to be intensive
enough to close the literacy achievement gap as quickly as possible (Moats, 2001). The success of
intensive interventions depends upon the match with the individual student’s instructional level (Curtis &
Longo, 1999). Very poor readers often have to strengthen their phonological skills because their inability
to identify speech sounds erodes spelling, word recognition, and vocabulary development. For less
severely impaired readers, educators often must target text reading fluency. When students can decode
words, educators must aggressively address vocabulary deficiencies with direct teaching and incentives to
read challenging material in and out of school. If students do not understand the words they are reading
and cannot derive meaning from context, they must expand their vocabulary and learn a repertoire of
comprehension strategies. “Students cannot and should not bypass any critical skills necessary for fluent
and meaningful reading just because of their chronological age” (Moats, 2001, p.5). Given the wide
35
variety of literacy needs, educators who provide intervention instruction to adolescents must have
knowledge of how to use assessment data to determine individual student needs and be familiar with all
of the research-based intervention options available to address the various components of reading and
writing instruction.
While many English learners will not require additional English language development instruction
beyond that provided in English Language Development (ELD) or Sheltered English Immersion (SEI)
classes, some English learners with identified language, literacy, and/or cognitive difficulties may also
benefit from daily literacy interventions. It is important to distinguish English learners who require
substantial intervention support from those who, with daily language and literacy instruction across the
curriculum and directed support within content areas, will achieve proficiency. Individual differences in
general language proficiency, age, English oral proficiency, cognitive abilities, and similarities and
differences of the native language and English all influence the ease with which English learners acquire
proficiency in spoken English and skill in reading and writing. The National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006) urges attentiveness to these
individual differences and an instructional focus on addressing these individual differences as the root
causes of literacy difficulties above and beyond those that many English learners encounter in the process
of acquiring English as a second language.
See p. 50 for the recommended steps to improve intervention services for struggling readers and writers.
Recommendation 4: Build capacity for exemplary literacy instruction by making revisions to
licensure regulations and the Massachusetts Tests of Educator Licensure (MTEL), if warranted,
and enhancing educator preparation programs in order to: 1) improve literacy teaching and
leadership; and 2) establish a literacy coaching pathway.
To build the capacity of practitioners and policymakers to deliver the highest quality literacy program,
Massachusetts recognizes that it must strengthen its organizational capabilities and work in partnership
with others in the state and across the region to prepare educators in pre-service education and to provide
ongoing professional development to improve skills and knowledge. The Massachusetts PreK-12
Literacy Plan emphasizes the critical role of higher education in building the knowledge base of preservice teachers with respect to evidence-based language and literacy research and practices. It also
emphasizes the importance of ongoing professional development provided by school, district, and state
professional development providers and literacy coaches with partners in higher education and
educational consulting companies. The availability of ongoing and sustained professional development is
the primary vehicle for deepening the knowledge of experienced teachers as they enact evidence-based
practices, assess the effectiveness of those practices, and reflect upon continuous improvement of skills to
help more students achieve success.

Improve literacy teaching and leadership.
Recent reports point to the need to strengthen current systems of educator education, licensure, and
continuing professional development to prepare classroom literacy teachers to teach foundational literacy
skills, content teachers to teach disciplinary literacy, and school and district leadership to serve as leaders
for literacy (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005). Revisions to
licensure requirements including, if warranted, the Massachusetts Tests of Educator Licensure (MTEL)
should be based on current research recommendations on the language and literacy skills that PreK-12
students need to be proficient readers and writers across the content areas and a continuum of skills that
educators need to acquire over the course of their careers to implement recommended evidence-based
literacy instructional practices with increasing competence. Licensure revisions will then serve as the
36
basis for modifications in educator preparation programs to prepare educators to satisfy licensure
regulations.
The effectiveness of literacy instruction is clearly linked to the knowledge base of educators, including
classroom teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools, reading specialists, special educators,
English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, librarians, and instructional leaders. It is through educator
preparation that educators acquire knowledge of evidence-based language and literacy instruction, and it
is through ongoing professional development that educators deepen their knowledge and confidence in
implementing exemplary practices (Learning First Alliance, 2000; Moats, 1999; National Reading Panel,
2000; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005; Strickland & Snow, 2002; Strickland & Kamil, 2004).
In March 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Education convened a meeting of professors of reading
in the state’s colleges and universities that offer a master’s degree in reading to discuss educator
preparation for the teaching of literacy. Dr. Catherine Snow from the Harvard Graduate School of
Education spoke at this meeting about adult development of knowledge in a cycle of learning, enactment
of knowledge, assessment, and reflection on the effectiveness of practice. She suggested that this cycle of
learn-enact-assess-reflect applies to teacher education, as it does to adult learning, at every step in the
continuum of professional development throughout an educator’s career: 1) pre-service preparation that
includes foundational knowledge of language development as related to the five dimensions of reading
articulated in the National Reading Panel Report (National Reading Panel, 2000), motivation to read,
language and cognition, and assessment to guide prevention and instruction; 2) an initial intern license
based on tests of subject matter and teaching knowledge; 2) novice teacher induction that includes one to
two years of early career mentoring and evaluation and ongoing professional development; 3) a
continuing license for experienced teachers based upon performance assessment that includes a portfolio
of videotaped lessons, written evaluations, and student work; 4) ongoing professional development to
deepen knowledge and apply knowledge to new contexts and case studies of practice; and 5) advanced
certification based on performance assessments and examinations (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 2005, p. 206).
Those with advanced certification are not only highly knowledgeable about language and literacy, but
also highly experienced in applying knowledge to practice and working with adults. Those with advanced
certification may qualify as peer mentors or coaches with responsibility for supporting novice and less
experienced teachers.
Snow recommended modifications in the preparation of all teachers to include enhancements in language
and literacy content. This includes language development related to the five dimensions of reading
highlighted in the Report of the National Reading Panel (Report of the Nation Reading Panel, 2000):
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension. In addition, she
urges attention to motivation to read, the functions of print, language and cognition, and assessment to
guide prevention and instruction.
As Louisa Moats argued some years ago, teaching reading is rocket science (Moats, 1999).
Unfortunately, the extent to which novice teachers are prepared to teach reading varies considerably from
one teacher preparation program to another. The time has come to build consensus regarding the
knowledge base that all novice teachers should have access to in their preparation to be classroom
teachers of reading, drawing upon the extensive research base in effective practice established during the
past 40 years. Professionals who work with students during the early literacy years are best able to help
children acquire the skills they will need for success if they are knowledgeable about the expectations for
early language and literacy developmental accomplishments and the curriculum and instruction that will
help children achieve these milestones. All early literacy teachers should be trained to deliver standardsbased and research-informed language and literacy instruction. Relevant coursework includes cognitive
development, language and literacy acquisition including second language acquisition, approaches for
37
working with English learners, valid and reliable formative and summative assessments, core and
intervention curricula and instructional approaches targeted to student needs, children’s literature, and
motivation to read and write (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; National Reading Panel, 2000).
In order to adequately prepare content area teachers to include disciplinary literacy in daily content area
instruction, the novice content area teacher should have sufficient knowledge of the literacy skills and
strategies that are most commonly used in particular disciplines. Articulated standards for English
language arts that define a core set of literacy skills that can be incorporated into content area instruction
is one approach to providing guidance for standards-based and research-informed literacy instruction
across the content areas. A second approach is for each discipline to designate the particular literacy
skills that are most commonly used in the discipline and to integrate these skills into the content standards
for each discipline. Once accomplished, this guidance serves as the first step toward aligning curricula
and instructional approaches with disciplinary literacy standards. In addition to preparation that includes
attention to literacy standards across the curriculum, all middle and high school content teachers should
take at least one course that provides an opportunity to practice integrating literacy skills and content area
teaching through the reading of complex text, writing domain-specific texts (e.g., science laboratory
reports, science and history research papers, literary analysis), using academic language to discuss
domain-specific topics, and making formal presentations to share research with peers.
Administrators, too, benefit from pre-service coursework on literacy skills and strategies appropriate to
particular grade levels and courses. Reading First’s inclusion of principals and district administrators in
academies on foundational literacy skills and advanced seminars on exemplary research-based practice
has been based on the conviction that administrators cannot be successful leaders for literacy without
significant understanding of language and literacy acquisition including second language acquisition,
literacy standards by grade level and course, formative and summative assessments, and aligned literacy
curricula and instructional practices for core and intervention instruction. The state’s recent partnership
with the National Institute for School Leaders (NISL) includes a literacy module and will provide all
principals in the state with access to this training. It is important to emphasize, though, the tremendous
benefit for instructional leaders of having had standards-based and evidence-informed coursework and
practical opportunities in preparation for careers as administrators rather than relying on ongoing
professional development to provide initial familiarity with critical literacy issues.
In addition to preparing classroom teachers for literacy teaching and administrators for literacy leadership,
it is important to ensure that adult basic education teachers are also trained in literacy skills that will help
parents become partners in their children’s education and those adult language and literacy skills that will
help adults improve their own literacy.
There is also a need to ensure that specialists, be they special educators, reading specialists, teachers of
English learners, or librarians have the knowledge of explicit and systematic skills instruction in reading
and writing to teach literacy skills to students who are learning academic English simultaneously with
acquiring content knowledge and to those who are having difficulty learning to read and write and require
interventions of varying intensity. There is also a need to ensure that content area teachers are prepared to
teach those literacy skills that are directly related to particular disciplines and to effectively shelter
content instruction for English learners in Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) classrooms.
As part of the New England Comprehensive Center (NECC) mandate to support adolescent literacy
initiatives in New England, faculty from institutions of higher education, state policymakers, and local
educators throughout New England are working together to improve pre-service and ongoing professional
development of all teachers of literacy, PreK-12. One idea in preliminary discussion is the establishment
of a center of excellence in each of the New England states. The Massachusetts Statewide Center for
38
Excellence in Literacy is envisioned as a collaborative project with offices at each of the campuses of the
University of Massachusetts: Amherst, Boston, Lowell, and Dartmouth. Each of the four clusters would
serve as the focal point for the state colleges and community colleges in the geographic region. By so
doing, the entire public higher education system would be united in focusing its attention on improving
literacy instruction for Massachusetts’ students. Faculty from the various public college campuses would
be recruited to serve in the clusters and be called “Commonwealth Fellows.” The Center is viewed as an
opportunity for faculty to come together to share their knowledge of literacy research and evidence-based
practices, work collaboratively to improve course syllabi for literacy teaching, develop presentations that
can be shared across the state, serve as a consultant pool of knowledgeable professors willing to work
with the Department of Education on its initiatives, and conduct research and evaluation studies of the
effectiveness of Massachusetts’ literacy initiatives in helping all students achieve proficiency and beyond
in English language arts and other content areas.
See p. 51 for the recommended steps to improve literacy teaching and leadership.

Establish a literacy coaching licensure pathway.
While Massachusetts has long offered the reading specialist license, it does not yet differentiate the role
of the literacy coach who works primarily with teachers from that of the reading specialist who works
primarily with struggling readers. One means of disseminating messages about best practice is by the use
of literacy coaches or others with specialized knowledge of literacy and content area teaching. Reading
First currently supports the salary of one literacy coach in each of its schools and a number of
communities across the Commonwealth employ literacy coaches who work primarily with classroom
teachers in implementing evidence-based practices. To date, however, the state does not differentiate a
pathway for literacy coaches distinct from that of reading specialists who work primarily with students in
an intervention setting. There is a high priority national need for research on the efficacy of literacy
coaches. However, anecdotal evidence from the Massachusetts experience with literacy coaching thus far
lends strong support to the potential of well trained, experienced, and knowledgeable literacy coaches in
helping classroom teachers implement exemplary practices. Considerations include: 1) whether the
literacy coaching credential should be an endorsement to the reading specialist licensure based on years of
experience as a classroom teacher and reading specialist and specialized coursework or ongoing
professional development on literacy coaching; or 2) whether the literacy coaching license should be
separate from that of the reading specialist. A committee consisting of representatives from higher
education and the Massachusetts Department of Education will be convened to review national research
and practice on coaching and make a recommendation regarding licensure for literacy coaching.
The question as to the usefulness of literacy coaches at the middle or high school level has also been
raised; there are few intervention teachers in secondary levels, let alone literacy coaches. There is surely
a need to develop a research agenda on literacy coaching at the secondary level (Snow, Ippolito, &
Schwartz, 2006) as well as to establish experimentally the extent to which coaching is beneficial at the
elementary level. Yet, even in the absence of a solid research base, Sturtevant (2003) argues that the
sheer scope of the national adolescent literacy crisis demands that the country train many more educators
as coaches for middle and high schools. As a result, the International Reading Association, in
collaboration with national content area teacher organizations, now recommends standards for literacy
coaches at the secondary level that address both coaching skills and the knowledge of specific content
areas (International Reading Association, 2006). In addition, the International Reading Association and
the National Council of Teachers of English has jointly established a clearinghouse for information on
coaching (http://www.literacycoachingonline.org/). These resources and standards provide states with a
starting point for revisions in educator licensure that may lead to an experienced teachers’ license for
literacy coaches. In turn, revisions in educator licensure will necessitate preparation programs for literacy
39
coaches that are distinct from those that prepare reading specialists.
See p. 52 for the recommended steps to establish a differentiated pathway for literacy coaches in
Massachusetts.
Recommendation 5: Build a network of statewide literacy leaders representing key stakeholder
groups committed to working together to improve literacy achievement across the Commonwealth
including a PreK-16 literacy team to advise on the implementation of the state’s literacy plan and to
support alignment of literacy expectations in pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle school, high
school, college, and careers.
Building a statewide system to improve the literacy achievement of all students clearly requires a
significant and concerted effort on the part of many: the Governor, the State Legislature, the Department
of Education, the Department of Early Education and Care, the Board of Higher Education, the University
of Massachusetts and other institutions of higher education, PreK-12 educators and educator
organizations, adult basic educators, business organizations, foundations, non-profits, educational
consultants, community-based literacy groups, and families.
Having the knowledge to improve literacy instruction is not enough to bring about the changes that are
required to substantially improve literacy achievement. In Leadership and Sustainability (2005), Fullan
notes that leadership is critical to sustainability of any type of education reform, including literacy. He
describes this as “the long lever of leadership,” defining leadership as all stakeholders at all levels. For
Fullan, it is distributed leadership in which every stakeholder is responsibility for the success of the
reform that ultimately leads to sustainability. Murphy (2004) makes the same point that it is commitment
rather than compliance that propels stakeholders to take responsibility for improving student literacy
achievement at every level of the system. It is commitment to the shared literacy vision and goals that
distinguishes educational efforts in which students excel.
The task of the Massachusetts Adolescent Literacy Task Force’s Communication Committee is to develop
a plan to disseminate information about the urgent need for all stakeholders to come together to work to
improve literacy achievement in Massachusetts at the pre-kindergarten, elementary, and secondary levels.
See p. 53 for the recommended steps to build a statewide network of literacy leaders.
VI.
ACTION PLANS TO ACHIEVE THE LITERACY VISION AND GOALS
As successful as Massachusetts has been to date in implementing initiatives that are helping to prevent
literacy gaps from starting, closing literacy achievements gaps when they exist, and challenging all
students to proficiency and beyond, it is clear that the state faces daunting challenges in achieving its
universal literacy goals.
To build a system of public education that is both student-centered and standards-based, Massachusetts
proposes to use its levers for change as the tools to achieve its literacy vision and goals. These levers, as
described by the Department of Education in its draft Framework for Leadership & Action (2006) (See
Appendix B) are the tools that are available to help the state achieve its action planning objectives. The
Department of Education’s levers for change include the following:

Aid & Grants: Federal, state, and private source provide more than $800 million in grant
funding to schools and districts to support educational innovations. Literacy grants include Title
I, Reading First, the John Silber Early Reading Initiative, Early Intervention grants, Early
40







Reading First, Full-Day Kindergarten, the Middle and High School Reading Initiative, and grants
targeted to English Language Learners (ELL)and students with special needs. Other grants with a
literacy component include Even Start Family Literacy, Community Adult Learning Centers,
Advanced Placement, Gifted and Talented, and Extended Day grants.
Information & Communications: The state communicates regularly with its public schools and
districts and posts critical data on student achievement. Among many purposes, Massachusetts
uses its Web site to disseminate information on literacy services and report literacy achievement
data. It also prepares and disseminates performance reports for schools and districts involved in
funded initiatives.
Partnerships & Networks: The state is building a partnership of stakeholders working together
to improve literacy achievement in Massachusetts including the governor, legislature, Department
of Education, Department of Early Education and Care, the Board of Higher Education, local
educators, institutions of higher education, community and business partners, and families. The
formation of a statewide Literacy Leadership Team will carry on the work of the Adolescent
Literacy Task Force and PreK-3 Subcommittee. This group will provide oversight for
dissemination efforts to build public support for the approval and implementation of the action
plans proposed in the Massachusetts Literacy Plan.
Policies & Regulations: The development and implementation of federal and state literacy
policies that disseminate best practices in literacy education throughout the Commonwealth. The
Department of Education is currently reviewing new regulations for licensure and standards for
graduation requirements related to MCAS.
Professional Development: The goal of professional development in literacy is to build the
knowledge base of educators regarding scientifically based literacy research and evidence-based
practices at both the pre-service and ongoing professional development levels. Collaboration of
institutions of higher education and the Department of Education’s educator licensure, reading
and language arts, language acquisition, standards, student assessment, accountability and
targeted assistance, and special education offices will help to ensure the consistency of the
message whether preparing novice educators to integrate literacy strategies and content area
teaching or experienced educators to deepen their knowledge of research-based practice. The
availability of school and district-based licensed literacy coaches and mentors and other staff with
advanced training in not only the content of language and literacy, but also coaching skills will
provide the support that educators need to implement best practices in daily instruction.
Program Reviews: Ongoing monitoring of the literacy programs and services that students
receive ensures that federal and state programmatic requirements are met.
Standards & Assessments: Massachusetts has established Curriculum Frameworks in each of
the core subjects for each grade. The Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum
Framework is the basis of the standards for PreK-12 reading, writing, and language development.
The framework is the basis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) in
English language arts. Schools are expected to improve the percentages of students achieving
proficiency on an annual basis. Those that do not meet annual yearly progress targets in
improving student proficiency in literacy are identified as in need of improvement. In addition to
outcome assessments, a comprehensive system of literacy assessment includes screening,
diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments that enable educators to target curriculum and
instruction to the needs of individual students.
Technical Assistance: Massachusetts provides significant technical assistance and support to
schools and districts to help them improve student literacy achievement. This includes school
improvement planning, training in the use of data from formative and outcomes assessments,
support for implementing scientifically based literacy instruction, understanding the requirements
of No Child Left Behind, and dissemination of best practices in improving literacy achievement
including federal projects such as Reading First.
41

Technology Solutions: Massachusetts is using Web-based technologies to support
improvements in collection of literacy achievement data and dissemination of information on
literacy programs across the state. 6
To implement the literacy plan’s recommendations, the Adolescent Literacy Task Force and the Early
Literacy Subcommittee recommend the following set of action plans that rely upon one or more the levers
available to the state to improve literacy services in Massachusetts. The Standards and Assessments
Subcommittee developed the action plans for recommendations 1 and 2. The Interventions Subcommittee
developed the action plan for recommendation 3 associated with interventions for struggling readers and
writers. The Educator Preparation, Licensure, and Ongoing Professional Development Subcommittee
developed the action plans for recommendation 4 and contributed ideas for ongoing professional
development for standards, assessments, and exemplary literacy practices. The Communication
Subcommittee developed the action plan for recommendation 5. The Early Literacy Subcommittee
contributed ideas for all of the recommendations.
These action plan recommendations follow from the set of action principles derived from the state’s
experience implementing literacy initiatives and the recommendations of evidence-based literacy
research. Over the next five years, the implementation of these action plans will be instrumental in
helping Massachusetts achieve its literacy goals and, ultimately, its vision that all students in
Massachusetts will acquire the language and literacy skills they need for proficiency in all areas of the
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and for success in post-secondary education and the 21st century
economy.
The draft Framework for Leadership & Action also includes the “bully pulpit” as a lever, but we have omitted that
lever in the Literacy Plan.
6
42
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 1: Revisions to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks
Recommendation 1: Re-examine the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks to ensure that they reflect current research recommendations regarding
language and literacy skills that PreK-12 students need to comprehend and communicate meaning across the content areas. This includes: 1) revisions
to the Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework by grade level and course with special attention to the reading and writing of
expository text; and 2) revisions to the Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering, History and Social Sciences,
Arts, and Health to specify the integration of disciplinary literacy skills and content area knowledge.
Levers: Aid & Grants, Information & Communication, Partnerships & Networks, Policy & Regulations, Professional Development, Standards & Assessments,
Technical Assistance, Technology Solutions
Action Steps
Resources Needed
Timeline/Deliverable
DOE convenes internal
working group to gather
resource materials, do
preliminary work
FY07: February –June 2007
B. Identify gaps in the current ELA framework and revise framework accordingly.
C. Finalize design and printing of new framework.
D. Obtain approval from State Board of Education
Working group convened to
include DOE staff, higher ed,
practitioners familiar with
ELA, graphic design and
printing for new framework
FY08: July 2007 – May 2008
E. Provide professional development on revised framework and alignment of
curriculum and instruction to the framework
Summer content institutes
FY09: July-August 2008
F.
Working group to develop
ancillary materials; graphic
design and printing of
ancillary documents
FY09: September 2008 –
June, 2009
1.1 Revise the Massachusetts English Language Arts Curriculum Framework.
A. Review evidence-based research on the ELA skills that students should have by
grade and course for reading and writing of expository, persuasive, and narrative
text
Develop ancillary documents including PreK-12 writing curricula, model syllabi for
courses that reflect the reading and writing demands of college and the workplace,
collections of exemplary student work and annotated MCAS open-response item
responses associated with the standards; create print and electronic versions
G. Revise associated documents (e.g., pre-kindergarten standards, Massachusetts
English Proficiency Benchmarks and Outcomes for English Language Learners)
H. Provide PD on the ELA framework revisions, approaches to alignment of
curriculum and instruction with standards, use of ancillary materials, etc.
43
Ongoing professional
development (e.g., meetings,
content institutes)
FY10: July-August 2009 –
September 2009 – June 2010
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 1: Revisions to the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks (continued).
Action Steps
Resources Needed
1.2 Revise the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks in Mathematics, Science and
Technology/Engineering, History and Social Sciences, Arts, and Health to specify the
integration of disciplinary literacy skills and content area knowledge.
Timeline/Deliverable
A. As an example of integrating literacy skills and content, review evidence-based
research on the literacy skills critical to acquiring science content
B. Revise the existing science framework for gaps in disciplinary literacy based upon
review of research and revise accordingly
Convene a cross-disciplinary
working group of DOE staff,
higher ed, practitioners
familiar with ELA & science
standards, consultant review
of resource materials
C. Finalize design and printing of revised framework for science
D. Obtain approval from the State Board of Education
Graphic design and printing
for new framework
E. Provide professional development on revised framework.
Summer 2008 content
institutes & other PD
FY09: July – August 2008
F.
DOE staff
Graphic design and printing of
ancillary documents;
distribution
FY09: September – June 2009
Ongoing professional
development - Dissemination
meetings, content institutes
FY10: July 2009 – June 1010:
Develop ancillary documents including model syllabi for courses that reflect the
reading and writing demands of college and the workplace associated with science
standards, collections of exemplary student reading and writing and annotated
MCAS open-response item responses associated with the science standards.
G. Create print and electronic versions of the revised frameworks and ancillary
documents
H. Provide professional development on revised framework and ancillary documents
I.
FY08: July 2007 – March
2008
FY09 – FY12
Continue process with other content areas
44
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 2: Enhancements to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)
Recommendation 2: Enhance the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) by: 1) diversifying reading and writing tasks across the content
areas on the annual standards-based MCAS assessments; and 2) developing and disseminating guidance on the local use of literacy-related formative assessments
to gauge student progress toward proficiency on MCAS and inform instructional decision-making.
Levers: Aid & Grants, Information & Communication, Partnerships & Networks, Policy & Regulations, Professional Development, Standards & Assessments,
Technical Assistance; Technology Solutions
Action Steps
Resources Needed
Timeline/Deliverable
2.1 Diversify reading and writing tasks across the content areas on the annual
standards-based MCAS assessments.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Review ELA assessments across the U.S. at the state and national level for examples of
inclusion of expository text
Modify the ELA MCAS assessment to include a higher percentage of expository text
passages
Modify the ELA MCAS assessment to include a variety of types of writing on the long
composition including expository, persuasive, and narrative writing
Finalize revised ELA assessment & seek Board of Education approval
Pilot revised reading & writing assessment
Provide professional development on revised ELA assessment, publish & disseminate
information
Administer revised ELA assessment
Create the structure & guidance for an extended, locally scored research/writing assessment
at the high school level
I. Research use of longer reading passages and inclusion of more complex reading and writing
tasks as part of content area assessments beginning with science
J. Modify the science assessment to include literacy skills integrated with content knowledge
K. Finalize & seek Board of Education approval for revised assessment
L. Pilot revised science assessment that includes disciplinary literacy skills
M. Provide professional development on revised assessment; publish & disseminate information
N. Administer revised science MCAS
Working group of educators,
literacy experts in higher
education, and DOE staff; begin
with ELA
FY10: Pilot revised ELA assessment
Working group of writing
experts, educators, and 2 fulltime DOE staff to conduct
research, develop structure,
conduct a pilot with volunteer
schools; funds to publish &
disseminate
H.
O. Expand disciplinary literacy assessment to other content areas (e.g., mathematics,
history/social science)
45
FY08: January – June 2008
FY09: July 2008 – June 2009
FY11: Administer revised ELA
MCAS
FY10: July 2009 – June 2010
FY11: July 2010 – June 2011
Expand working group to
include science educators and
experts
Working group to revise science
assessment, oversee pilot; funds
for PD & publishing
Expand working group to
include experts in other
disciplines
FY09: January – June 2009
FY10: July 2009 – June 2010 – pilot
revised science assessment
FY 11: July 2010 – June 2011 –
administer revised science MCAS
FY11 – FY12: July 2011 – June
2013
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 2: Enhancements to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) (continued).
Action Steps
Resources Needed
Timeline/Deliverable
2.2 Develop and disseminate guidance on the local use of literacy-related formative
assessments to gauge student progress toward proficiency on ELA MCAS and
inform instructional decision-making.
A. Conduct inventory of formative assessment practices PreK-12 for reading, writing
and language development being used in MA school districts including the use of on
line assessments and examine degree of alignment with the revised MA literacy
standards
Working group of educators,
DOE staff, & higher ed
experts on formative
assessment
FY08: January - June 2008
B. Develop guidance on formative assessments aligned to the revised ELA standards to
assist districts in identifying or designing formative assessments
DOE staff, funds for
publication & dissemination
FY09: July – December 2008
C. Obtain approval from State Board of Education for guidance document on formative
assessment in ELA, publish & disseminate document
DOE staff
FY09: January – June 2009
D. Provide regional professional development to all MA school districts on the
effective use of formative assessments for ELA (e.g., regional professional
development institutes, on line course on formative assessment, training modules,
etc.)
DOE staff, consultants
FY10: July 2009 – June 2010
Evaluators, DOE staff
FY11 – FY13: July 2010 - June
2013
E. Design & implement three-year evaluation on the impact of ELA formative
assessment on district performance in ELA
46
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 3: Standards-based and evidence-informed literacy practices
Recommendation 3: Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on: 1) foundational language
and literacy skills, PreK-3; 2) disciplinary literacy across the content areas, grades 4-12; and 3) literacy interventions for struggling
readers and writers.
Levers for Change: Aid & Grants; Information & Communication, Partnerships & Networks; Policies & Regulations; Professional
Development; Program Reviews; Standards & Assessments; Technical Assistance, Technology
Action Steps
Resources Needed
3. 1 Identify and communicate information regarding foundational literacy skills and
strategies, PreK-3.
A. Expand the John Silber Early Literacy Initiative line item in state budget to
extend support for a greater number of underperforming K-3 schools for
standards-based and evidence-informed reading instruction modeled after
Reading First. This includes funding for purchase of aligned core and
intervention curricula, formative assessments, and support of a school-based
literacy coach.
B. Expand the John Silber Early Literacy Initiative line item to extend support to
underperforming K-3 schools for writing and language development programs
that are aligned with the MA ELA Curriculum Framework and informed by
evidence-based research
C. Consider alternative sources of support in addition to the Silber line, including the
use of Title I funds or other state funds by underperforming schools to implement
standards-based and evidence-informed practices.
D. Provide regional professional development on standards-based and researchinformed literacy practices to all Massachusetts schools through state-sponsored
activities (e.g., regional professional development institutes, online courses,
academies, and seminars), connecting PreK and K-3 instruction
E. Expand the established Reading First regional implementation facilitator network
to provide technical assistance and professional development to additional
underperforming K-3 schools with technical support and professional
development on evidence-based language and literacy practices.
F. Expand access to pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten programs with
curriculum and instructional approaches that are aligned with the Massachusetts
Curriculum Frameworks and the recommendations of evidence-based research
47
Office of Reading staff;
financial support from state
budget
Office of Reading staff;
financial support from state
budget
Office of Reading staff,
financial support from federal
and state funding sources
Timeline/Deliverable
FY08
FY09 – FY12
FY09 – FY12
FY09 – FY12
Office of Reading & EEC staff,
higher education partnerships,
consultants; financial support
from state budget
FY09-FY12
Office of Reading staff, PD
consultants, nationally
recognized language & literacy
experts; financial support from
state budget
EEC staff, DOE staff
FY09 – FY12
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 3: Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on standards-based and researchinformed literacy practices (continued)
Action Steps
Resources Needed
Timeline/Deliverable
3.2 Identify and communicate information regarding adolescent literacy instruction.
A. Establishing a state budget line item of for adolescent literacy in underperforming
middle and high schools, especially targeting those underperforming schools that
have been part of the state’s middle and high school reading initiative funded
through special education. Funding priorities include: evidence-based curriculum &
instructional approaches, formative & summative assessments, reading specialists
and literacy coaches.
B. Identify alternative funding to support adolescent literacy instruction including the
use of Title I funds and other state funding.
C. Expand the adoption of the MA Secondary School Literacy Model by
underperforming middle and high schools by continuing to award small federally
funded special education grants to targeted underperforming middle and high
schools to enable them to assess current literacy needs and school practices and
develop a related multi-year literacy actions plan.
D. Provide professional development on adolescent literacy to all middle and high
schools through state-sponsored professional development offerings including
awareness meetings, Summer Content Institutes, Title I Institutes, etc.
E. Establish a regional professional development network of implementation
facilitators for secondary literacy by either hiring adolescent literacy experts as DOE
staff or contracting with consultants and higher education
F.
Establish the position of Adolescent Literacy Coordinator at the Manager VI level to
oversee the state’s adolescent literacy initiatives.
48
Office of Reading staff;
financial support from state
budget
Office of Reading staff;
financial support from state
and federal sources for RFP
process
Office of Reading & higher
education partnerships,
consultants with expertise in
disciplinary literacy;
educators engaged in
disciplinary literacy;
financial support from state
for PD
Office of Reading, state
financial support
FY08 – FY12
FY09 – FY12
FY09 – FY12
PD curricula and presentations
FY08 – FY12
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 3: Identify and communicate information and provide ongoing implementation support on standards-based and researchinformed literacy practices (continued).
Action Plans
Resources
Timeline/Deliverables
3.3 Identify and communicate information about standards-based and evidenceinformed interventions for struggling readers and writers.
A. Research effective interventions for adolescent struggling readers & writers,
establish definitions of adolescent struggling readers and writers; and conduct
inventory of existing intervention practices in Massachusetts’ middle and high
schools; continue analysis of interventions at grades PreK-3
DOE staff, educators with
expertise in interventions,
higher education experts,
consultant support, financial
support to conduct work &
produce document
FY08: June – December, 2007
B. Develop guidance regarding a flexible, school-based process to identify struggling
readers and writers, address identified needs, and monitor progress using valid &
reliable formative assessments
C. Develop profiles of struggling readers and writers and prepare guidance regarding
appropriate interventions for specified profiles
DOE staff, educators with
expertise in interventions,
higher education experts,
consultant support, financial
support to conduct work &
produce document
FY08: January – June 2008
D. Obtain approval for a regulation from the State Board of Education that requires
all students who are not proficient on ELA MCAS receive a minimum of 90
minutes of daily literacy instruction and additional interventions targeted to needs.
Intervention should be guided by an Individual Student Success Plan (ISSPs) that
specifies assessment data and intervention services
DOE staff
Development of policy
regulation
FY09 : July 2008 – June 2009
E. Provide funding for early literacy and adolescent literacy programs targeted to
interventions for struggling readers and writers
DOE staff oversees RFP
process
FY08 – FY12
F.
Provide regional professional development on interventions for struggling readers
and writers.
49
DOE staff with PD support
from higher education,
consultants, state TA/PD
providers; state and federal
support
FY08 – FY12
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 4: Build capacity for exemplary literacy instruction.
Recommendation 4: Build capacity for exemplary literacy instruction by making revisions to licensure regulations and the Massachusetts Tests of
Educator Licensure (MTEL), if warranted, and enhancing educator preparation programs in order to: 1) improve literacy teaching and leadership;
and 2) establish a literacy coaching licensure pathway.
Levers: Professional Development, Policies & Regulations, Partnerships & Networks, Standards & Assessments
Action Steps
4.1 Improve educator preparation for classroom literacy teachers, specialists, content
area teachers, and school and district leadership for literacy
A.
In conjunction with 1.1 and 1.2, develop a continuum of knowledge & skills that
teachers of language and literacy need to have with respect to the revised
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and best practice in educator education.
B.
Establish a continuum of professional development throughout an educator’s
career (e.g., pre-service foundational knowledge, intern/novice teacher license,
continuing professional development, experienced educator license, continuing
professional development, advanced educator license including mentoring)
C.
Identify gaps in current licensure & make recommendations for changes to
teacher and/or administrator licensure and program approval processes. For
adolescent literacy, begin with the integration of literacy skills and science
content. Revisions may include modifications in MTEL.
D.
Review current preparation of classroom and content area teachers for
preparation to work with English learners in Sheltered English Immersion (SEI)
settings. Identify gaps in teacher licensure and program approval standards &
make recommendations for changes to teacher licensure and program approval
processes; may include modifications in MTEL.
E.
Create the “Massachusetts Statewide Center for Excellence in Literacy” as
collaborative venture to improve the preparation of teachers of literacy across
the state; group takes lead in developing examples of syllabi to improve
foundational literacy and disciplinary literacy courses. Identify model
Massachusetts pre-service teacher preparation programs that reflect the
principles and practices of exemplary literacy teaching and provide opportunities
to disseminate these practices to other institutions of higher education
F.
Facilitate regional professional development seminars on early and adolescent
literacy research and evidence-based practices for interested higher education
faculty.
50
Resources Needed
Timeline/Deliverable
Create cross-disciplinary
teams to review the ELA
framework and science
framework for disciplinary
literacy; review foundational
literacy skills for elementary
core instruction; DOE staff,
educators, higher education,
consultant support
FY07: January 2007 – June 2008
FY08: July 2008 – June 2009
Higher education
collaboration, products on
best practices in literacy
preparation programs,
presentations
FY09: July 2008 – June 2009
Development of sample
syllabi for literacy courses;
publication and
dissemination
FY09: July 2008- June 2009
DOE and higher education
partners
FY09 – FY12 July 2008 – June
2012
.
Massachusetts PreK-12Literacy Plan
Action Plan 4: Build capacity for exemplary literacy instruction (continued).
Action Steps
4.2 Establish a literacy coaching licensure pathway.
A. Review national organization recommendations regarding literacy specialists vs.
literacy coaching and whether literacy coaching should be: an endorsement to the
reading specialist license based upon years of experience as a reading specialist,
ongoing professional development on coaching, and a coaching practicum; or, a
separate literacy coaching license.
B. Identify Massachusetts school districts already successfully using literacy coaches
and roles & responsibilities of schools coaches
C. Determine the capacity of Massachusetts’ colleges and universities to provide
appropriate preparation for literacy coaches.
D. Revise Massachusetts’ licensure requirements to include a pathway for literacy
coaches and obtain approval for the new license from the State Board of Education
including modifications in MTEL, if warranted.
E. Identify demonstration higher education/sponsor sites for piloting of a coaching
course sequence/approved program leading to licensure; development and
dissemination of course syllabi
F. Provide regional professional development to support literacy coaches.
51
Resources Needed
Timeline/Deliverable
DOE, higher education
working group to conduct
research, recommend
licensure and program
approval revisions
FY08: July 2007 – December
2007
DOE staff
FY08: January – June 2008
Identify exemplary courses
and syllabi – support
demonstration sites; Inventory
colleges and universities for
capacity to deliver coaching
courses
FY09: July 2008 – June 2009
Higher ed; DOE staff
FY10 – FY12
Massachusetts PreK-12 Literacy Plan
Action Plan 5: Build a network of statewide literacy leaders, PreK-16.
Recommendation 5: Build a network of statewide literacy leaders representing key stakeholder groups committed to working together to
improve literacy achievement across the Commonwealth including a PreK-16 literacy team to advise on the implementation of the state’s
literacy plan and to support alignment of literacy expectations in pre-kindergarten, elementary, middle school, high school, college, and
careers.
Levers for Change: Information and Communication; Partnerships & Networks
Action Steps
5.0 Build a network of stakeholders throughout Massachusetts
committed to improving literacy achievement at the elementary
and secondary levels.
A. Institute a permanent Massachusetts Literacy Team, PreK-16 that
will oversee the implementation of the Massachusetts PreK-12
Literacy Plan and forge collaborations with all stakeholders to
build awareness of literacy issues in Massachusetts
B. Disseminate information about literacy in Massachusetts in a
media campaign that includes a slogan and dissemination of
information in a quarterly newsletter to interested stakeholders
C. Conduct periodic focus groups to inform the public about the
state’s literacy initiatives and obtain feedback.
Resources Needed
Identify stakeholders from
key government, educator,
higher education,
foundations and business,
and educator organization
groups to participate on the
team
Newsletter team with Office
of Reading support for
writing and dissemination
PR/marketing team to work
with media on literacy issues
in MA
Focus group team; funding
for focus groups
52
Timeline/Deliverables
FY07: Organize members
FY08 FY12: convene team three times/year
FY08 – FY12
FY08 – FY12
Appendix A. Adolescent Literacy Task Force and Early Literacy Subcommittee
As of December 20, 2006
Task Force Leadership
Risa Kaplan, Task Force Leader
Cheryl Liebling, Task Force Leader and
Point of Contact
State Legislature
Senator Robert A. Antonioni
Representative Patricia Haddad
Executives from Relevant State
Agencies
David P. Driscoll
Patricia Plummer
Jack Wilson
Christine Kenney
Ann Reale
Karen Tewhey
Massachusetts Department of
Education
Jeffrey Nellhaus
Anne Serino
Carole Thomson
Bobbie D’Alessandro
Elizabeth Davis
Dorothy Earle
Education Advisor, MA Executive Office for
Administration and Finance
Director, Office of Reading and Language Arts, MA Dept.
of Education
Co-chair, Joint Committee on Education, Arts &
Humanities
Co-chair, Joint Committee on Education, Arts &
Humanities
Commissioner of Education, MA Dept. of Education
Deputy to the Chancellor, Board of Higher Education
President, University of Massachusetts
Director of Educational Services, Dept. of Youth Services
Commissioner, Dept. of Early Education & Care
Asst. Commissioner, Dept. of Early Education and Care
Donna Traynham
Deputy Commissioner of Education
Director, Adult and Community Learning
Associate Commissioner, State and Federal Programs
Director, School Performance Evaluation
Education Specialist, Student Assessment Services
Education Specialist & Co-Coordinator, MA Middle and
High School Reading Initiative
Director, Science and Technology/Engineering Education
Assistant Director, Special Education Planning and Policy
Development
Reading First Regional Manager & Implementation
Facilitator
Reading First District Implementation Facilitator
Statewide Reading First Implementation Manager
Administrator, Student and Secondary Support &
Coordinator of the MA High School Redesign Initiative
Director, Office of Language Acquisition and Academic
Achievement
Director, Test Development
Education Specialist & Co-Coordinator, MA Middle and
High School Reading Initiative
Director, State Title I
Director, Educator Preparation Programs, Educator
Preparation & Quality
PK-16 Specialist, State and Federal Programs
Susan Wheltle
Lise Zeig
Director, Office of Humanities
Director, School and District Intervention
Jacob Foster
Madeline Levine
Kathleen Lord
Nicole Mancevice
Joan McNeil
Stafford Peat
Kathryn Riley
Phil Robakiewicz
Laurie Slobody
Barbara Solomon
Robert Thomas
53
K-12 Educators
Catherine Carney
Lisa Dyer
Sheila Hoffman
Cleopatra Knight-Wilkins
Cathleen Kral
Sara Lane
Henry McClintock
Basan Nembirkow
Pamela Shufro
Deborah Spinelli
Joanne Wilson-Keenan
Cheryl Wrin
Higher Education
Elaine Bukowiecki
Margaret Russell Ciardi
Mary Beth Curtis
Sandra Jones
Catherine Snow
Non-Profit Organizations
Alison Fraser
Paulo Zina
Jill Norton
Business Organizations
Maura Banta
Carolyn Jacobs
Ed Moskovitch
Joan Sedita
Randy Testa
Foundations
Pendred Noyce
Community Organizations
Katie Baxter
Statewide Policy Organizations
Suzan Cullen
Joyce Croce
Mary Fischer
Assistant Headmaster, Academy of Science and
Engineering - English High School
District Literacy Coach, Worcester Public Schools
Coordinator of Small Learning Communities & Striving
Readers Grant, Chicopee Public Schools
Chief Academic Officer, Boston Renaissance Charter Public
School
Director of Literacy Coaches, Boston Public Schools
Principal, Marlborough Middle School
Teacher, Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School
Superintendent, Brockton Public Schools
Director of Curriculum and Assessment, Medfield Public
Schools
Assistant Superintendent, Stoughton Public Schools
Director of Reading, Springfield Public Schools
English Language Arts Coordinator, Plymouth Public
Schools
Assistant Professor of Literacy Education, Bridgewater
State College
Senior Fellow, Center for University, School, and
Community Partnerships, University of MA, Dartmouth
Director, Center for Special Education, Lesley University
Director, Hanson Initiative for Language and Literacy, MA
General Hospital, Institute of Health Professions
Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Director, Great Schools Campaign, MA Insight Education
Educational Manager, K-12 Services, New England
Regional Office of the College Board Association
Assistant Director, The Rennie Center for Education
Research and Policy
Chairwoman, MA Business Alliance for Education
Teachers’ Domain, WGBH
President, Cape Ann Economics
President, Sedita Learning Strategies
Education Director, Walden Media
President, The Noyce Foundation
President, MA Municipal Library Association
President, Council of Administrators of Compensatory
Education (CACE)
Board Member, Massachusetts Association of Science
Teachers (MAST)
President, Massachusetts Reading Association (MRA)
54
Robin Gibbons
Linda Hayes
Judy Heine
B. Ellen Holmes
Vicki Jacobs
Carla Jentz
Thomas Gosnell
Marinel McGrath
Paula Merchant
Donna Pappalardo
Richard Santeusanio
Dympna Thomas
Anne Wass
Debbie Westaway
Liaison to the New England
Comprehensive Center
Cynthia Mata-Aguilar
Representative, New England Association of Teachers of
English (NEATE)
Chair, Teaching and Learning Committee, MA Secondary
School Administrators Association (MSSAA)
President, Massachusetts Council for the Social Studies
Representative, MA Association of School Committees
(MASC)
President, MA Association of College and University
Reading Educators (MACURE)
Director, Massachusetts Administrators for Special
Education (ASE)
President, American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts
President, MA Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development (MASCD)
Executive Director, MA Association of Teachers of
Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL)
President Elect, Association of Teachers of Mathematics in
Massachusetts (ATMIM)
Secondary Reading Advisor, New England League of
Middle Schools (NELMS)
Professional Development Chair, MESPA
President, MA Teachers Association (MTA)
Representative, Urban Special Education Collaborative
Senior Project Director, Education Development Center
55
Appendix B. The Massachusetts Department of Education’s Framework for Leadership and Action. Draft
as of September 2006.
VISION

All students will be
prepared to be
productive and
contributing
members of a
democratic society
and global economy
GOALS



ACTION
PRINCIPLES

Prevent the
achievement
gap from
starting
Challenge all
students to
proficiency &
beyond
Close the
achievement
gap where it
exists



Address the
needs of the
whole child
Build capacity
at all levels
Identify and
communicate
what works
Promote high
standards &
accountability
for results
LEVERS










56
Aid & Grants
Bully Pulpit
Information &
Communications
Partnerships &
Networks
Policies &
Regulations
Professional
Development
Program Reviews
Standards &
Assessments
Technical Assistance
Technology
Solutions
Appendix C. The Massachusetts Reading First Plan7
The Massachusetts Reading First Plan is built upon the premise that curriculum and instructional
approaches should be both standards-based and informed by scientifically based reading research
(SBRR). Scientifically based reading research: 1) utilizes systematic research methods that draw on
observation or experiment; 2) involves rigorous data analyses to test stated hypotheses and justify
conclusions; 3) relies on measurements that provide valid and reliable data; and 4) has been published in
peer-review journals or approved by independent experts in a rigorous, objective, and scientific review.
In 2000, the National Reading Panel (2000) published its findings regarding meta-analyses of scientific
research in reading conducted over the past 40 years in each of the predominant areas of early reading
instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary development, and comprehension
strategies. It is this body of research was instrumental in the development of the federal Reading First
project.




Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate individual phonemes or
sounds in spoken words. Key findings include: 1) phonemic awareness instruction, especially
segmenting and blending phonemes, is more effective when students use letters to manipulate
phonemes; 2) explicit phonemic awareness instruction helps beginning readers and those having
reading difficulties; and 3) explicit phonemic awareness instruction helps students in prekindergarten, kindergarten, and early grade 1 become attentive to the phonemes within spoken
words.
Phonics is the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes and
graphemes, the letters and spellings that represent sounds in written language. Key findings
include: 1) phonics instruction improves word reading skills and text comprehension, especially
for children in kindergarten, grade one, and older students who struggle with decoding; 2) explicit
and systematic phonics instruction is more effective than instruction that does not introduce
sound-symbol relationships in a systematic manner. In systematic phonics instruction, students
are explicitly taught a set of letter-sound relationships and then practice decoding words within
text that includes those specific relationships; and 3) explicit and systematic phonics instruction is
significantly more effective than non-systematic phonics instruction for all children – those of
varying abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and ages.
Fluency is the ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with expression. Fluency is often
viewed as a bridge between phonics/decoding and comprehension. Key findings include: 1)
guided oral reading procedures such as repeated readings with feedback from a fluent reader, are
appropriate to help students improve fluency; 2) repeated oral reading helps students throughout
the early elementary grades improve fluency; and 3) students who do not become fluent readers
are unlikely to be able to focus their attention on comprehension of text and, therefore, remain
poor readers throughout their lives.
Vocabulary development is part of oral and written language. It includes those words that
students must know in order to be able to comprehend text as well as those words that students
use in every spoken language. Key findings include: 1) vocabulary should be taught both directly
and indirectly; 2) Repetition and multiple exposure to vocabulary helps students acquire new
words; 3) learning vocabulary in rich contexts helps students acquire new vocabulary; 4) spoken
and written language vocabulary development is best learned in active contexts in which students
are engaged in using language for a wide range of communicative purposes and for a wide range
of audiences; and 5) computer technology can enhance vocabulary acquisition.
7
The definitions provided here are drawn from the resource binder of Expanding the Reach of Scientifically Based
Reading Research in Title I Schools, a project of the U.S. Department of Education (2006) and Put Reading First, a
document developed by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement for the Partnership for
Reading (2001).
57

Comprehension is the ability to understand text meaning. As with phonics instruction
comprehension strategies should be taught in an explicit manner. Strategies with evidence of
effectiveness include: 1) comprehension monitoring, or the metalinguistic awareness of one’s
own comprehension and ability to adjust reading to improve comprehension; 2) cooperative
learning, or the ability to work with peers in groups to comprehend text; 3) the use of graphic
organizers, or the use of external aids such as diagrams or charts to improve comprehension; 4)
question answering by responding to questions about what has been read; 5) question generating
in which students generate literal, inferential, and critical reading questions about text they have
read; 6) the use of story structure including features such as main ideas, setting, character
actions, themes, etc. to improve narrative comprehension; 7) summarization in which students
summarize main ideas orally or in writing; and 8) reciprocal teaching in which a combination of
strategies is used in sequence to predict and confirm meaning by identifying key concepts,
clarifying misunderstandings, and summarizing important information.
Relying upon SBRR to make sound curriculum and instructional decisions implies that educators are
familiar with the findings of scientifically based reading research and use these findings when making
decisions about curriculum content and instructional approaches in core and intervention programs.
Among the key features of the Massachusetts Reading First Plan’s approach to the implementation of
research-based practices is a three-tier model of curriculum delivery: core instruction for all students and
supplemental and/or intensive intervention for struggling readers (Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and
Language Arts, 2003). Core reading instruction for all students is provided in Tier I. Schools are
encouraged to make wise choices regarding instructional material, selecting those that are well aligned
with the findings of scientifically based reading instruction as articulated in the National Reading Panel
Report (2000). To do so, the project recommends that schools and districts evaluate the effectiveness of
materials using available resources including product reviews provided by the Florida Center for Reading
Research (www.fcrr.org).
All students receive a minimum of 90 minutes per day of core reading instruction using an instructional
program that is aligned with the Massachusetts English Language Arts standards for K-3 and employs
instructional approaches consistent with the findings of scientifically based reading research in each of the
five predominant areas of early reading instruction. Based upon data from the formative and outcomes
assessments used in Reading First (see Appendix D), all students are placed in needs-based,
homogeneous groups during a portion of core reading instruction. The uninterrupted block for core
reading instruction consists of a limited amount of whole class instruction and 20-30 minutes per day for
individual students to work with their classroom teacher in a homogeneous needs-based group on skills
that the group of students is ready to learn. In addition to whole and small group instruction, students also
work in literacy centers on activities directly linked to the whole and small group instruction and have
daily opportunities to practice using their skills when reading high quality children’s literature and
expository text that is appropriate for their reading level.
Those students who are identified as somewhat at risk or substantially at risk on formative or outcomes
assessments also receive an additional 30 minutes per day of intervention. Intensity of intervention is
determined by a number of factors including: 1) whether instruction is provided by a licensed teacher or
interventionist who is specifically trained to deliver the intervention or is provided by either a computerbased program or a staff member of volunteer with limited training as a teacher; 2) whether the student
receives intervention in a tutorial or small group setting; 3) whether intervention is provided within the
classroom including use of technology-based programs or outside of the classroom; and 4) the extent to
which the program of instruction is characterized as explicit and systematic skills instruction. In general,
the more at risk the student, the greater the need is for a highly intensive program of instruction that will
accelerate the students’ skills and help to close literacy achievement gaps. In some cases, an alternative
58
core program is offered to students in grades 2 and 3 who are not making sufficient progress to close
gaps. In these cases, students do not participate in the school’s core reading program, but rather work
with a highly trained and licensed teacher who delivers a systematic and explicit instructional program for
the full 90 minutes of core instruction. These students may also receive a second dose of intervention that
focuses on specific dimensions of reading with which the student would benefit from targeted
intervention support.
For additional information on the assessments used to group students for instruction, see Appendix D.
An important feature of the Reading First project is the availability of ongoing and sustained professional
development to improve the capacity of educators to deliver research-based reading instruction. The
state’s professional development offerings begin with Teacher Reading Academies that train new Reading
First and John Silber teachers in the foundational content of the project. Recently, the state has broadened
its foundational content to include a hybrid computer-based course and facilitated study group for new
staff in Reading First and Silber schools. Massachusetts also offers advanced seminars several times each
year. These are opportunities for Reading First and John Silber coaches, principals, and district leaders to
learn from nationally recognized experts on specific early reading topics. Since Reading First’s inception,
advanced seminars have been presented on vocabulary development for all students and especially for
English Language Learners, literacy coaching, comprehension strategies, fluency, three tiers of
curriculum delivery, interventions for struggling readers, leadership for literacy, and the findings of the
recent Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (August &
Shanahan, 2006). In August 2006, the state hosted a two-day Reading First conference for all teachers in
Reading First and John Silber schools during which many leading experts from across the country
presented on their topics of expertise.
The dissemination of information and support for the implementation of practices recommended in
statewide training continues at the regional and district and school levels with the guidance of a statewide
network of implementation facilitators and school-based literacy coaches who help classroom teachers
implement research-based practices. The state currently has a network of implementation facilitators
working in five regions across the state. These individuals are well trained and highly knowledgeable
about effective research-based literacy practices and serve the critical function of carrying the federal and
state messages regarding exemplary practice into every Reading First and John Silber school and district.
Implementation Facilitators develop and deliver presentations for school coaches and school and district
leaders that are then available for local professional development re-delivery by school and district staff.
In addition, they work directly in schools to help school-based coaches and principals implement
evidence-based practices in the classroom. Key areas of support include data analysis to inform
instruction, coaching on the three-tier model of curriculum delivery and related instructional strategies,
resource allocation, scheduling of components of the literacy block, and recommendations to school and
district leadership on the implementation of the project’s components.
In addition to the state’s implementation facilitators, every Reading First school has a Reading First
Reading Specialist, a literacy coach who is licensed as a reading specialist in Massachusetts. Schoolbased literacy coaches carry the messages of Reading First into every classroom. The predominant roles
and responsibilities include: assisting teachers in analyzing data from valid and reliable assessments to
inform instruction in small groups and interventions; leading grade level data meetings; facilitating study
groups using texts identified in statewide professional development; and in-class coaching including
demonstrations of instructional techniques, peer observation of classroom teaching, and feedback
conferences with classroom teachers.
59
Appendix D: The Massachusetts Assessment Framework for Reading First and John Silber
Early Reading Initiative Schools, 2006
The Massachusetts Assessment Framework, K-3 requires the use of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy (DIBELS) for screening and progress monitoring benchmarks of phonemic awareness,
phonics, and fluency. Students are benchmarked three times/year in one or more subtests depending upon
grade level and are assigned to one of three categories: low risk, some risk, or at risk. Some risk and at
risk students receive supplemental or intensive intervention and are progress monitored on a frequent
basis to chart improvements in phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency.
The assessment framework also requires the use of the norm-referenced Group Reading And Diagnostic
Evaluation (GRADE) at the item analysis level primarily for vocabulary and comprehension at the
beginning and end of the school year and as an off-level progress monitoring assessment throughout the
year. It also recommends the use of in-depth diagnostic measures such as the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (CTOPP) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) when
interventionists need additional information for instructional grouping or class placement.
In addition to these assessments, both projects also use curriculum-based assessments to monitor
achievement of curricula objectives associated with particular programs of instruction. When curriculum
is well aligned with the Massachusetts standards, the use of curriculum-based assessments may also help
educators determine whether students are making adequate progress toward proficiency on MCAS.
Central to the success of a comprehensive assessment system is establishing the predictive validity of
formative assessment data with likely proficiency on the MCAS outcomes measures at year-end,
beginning at grade 3. GRADE is used as the standardized outcomes measure for grades 1, 2, and 3 at the
end of the year, and MCAS at grade 3 is used as the standards-based measure. The projects have
established that students who score at stanine 5 (“average performance”) or above on GRADE have
achieved the Reading First goal of reading at or above grade level. The projects have also established that
achieving the low risk benchmark on the DIBELS subtest of oral reading fluency at the beginning of
grade 3 is highly correlated with stanine 6 (high average) or above on GRADE at the beginning of grade
3. In turn, achieving stanine 6 or above on GRADE at the beginning of grade 3 is highly correlated with
proficiency on MCAS at the end of grade 3. Thus, there appears to be predictive validity of the Reading
First formative assessment data in helping schools and districts target instruction to those students who
are not likely to be proficient on MCAS without accelerated intervention.
What follows is the assessment framework for each of grades K-3.
60
Reading First and John Silber Early Reading Initiatives
Kindergarten Assessment Framework, 2006
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
Screening/Diagnostic
Fall Benchmark
COMPONENT
Group
Individual
Phonemic
Awareness
--
Phonics
Comprehension
--GRADE, Level P, Form
A
Listening
Comprehension
Letter
Naming Fluency
--
--
MAY-JUNE
Outcomes
Winter
Benchmark
Spring Benchmark
Group
Individual
DIBELS
Benchmark 2
DIBELS
Initial Sound Fluency
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
DIBELS
Benchmark 3
--
DIBELS
Benchmark 2
Letter Naming
Fluency
Nonsense Word
Fluency
DIBELS
-PPVT-III
--
JANUARY
Individual
DIBELS
Benchmark 1
--
Fluency
Vocabulary
DIBELS
Benchmark 1
Initial Sound
Fluency
AS NEEDED
In-depth
Diagnostic/
Progress
Monitoring +
(listening)
--
DIBELS
Benchmark 3
--
--
--
--
--
--
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
GRADE, Level K,
Form B
Letter Naming Fluency
Nonsense Word Fluency
----
Listening Comprehension
Key: DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation;
PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed; Massachusetts Reading First and John Silber Early Reading Initiatives; + indepth diagnostic s assessments are recommendations only.
61
Reading First and John Silber Early Reading Initiatives
Grade 1 Assessment Framework, 2006
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
AS NEEDED
In-depth
Diagnostic and
Progress
Monitoring +
Screening/ Diagnostic
Fall Benchmark
COMPONENT
Phonemic
Awareness
Group
GRADE, Level K, Form A
Sound Matching
Rhyming
GRADE, Level K, Form A
Phonics/Word
Identification
Fluency
Print Awareness
Letter Recognition
Same/Different Words
Phoneme-Grapheme
Correspondence
Word Reading (optional)
--
Individual
DIBELS
Benchmark 1
Individual
Phoneme
Segmentation
Fluency
DIBELS
DIBELS
Benchmark 1
Letter Naming
Fluency
Nonsense Word
Fluency
--
JANUARY
MAY-JUNE
Outcomes
Spring Benchmark
Winter
Benchmark
Group
Individual
DIBELS
Benchmark 2
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
DIBELS
Benchmark 2
DIBELS
Nonsense Word Fluency
GRADE
--
DIBELS
Benchmark 3
Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency
GRADE, Level 1, Form
B
DIBELS
Benchmark 3
Nonsense Word Fluency
Word Reading
(off level)
DIBELS
Benchmark 2
--
--
Oral Reading Fluency
DIBELS
Benchmark 3
Oral Reading Fluency
PPVT-III
Vocabulary
--
--
(listening)
--
GRADE, Level 1, Form B
Word Meaning (reading)
Comprehension
GRADE, Level K,
Form A
Listening Comprehension
GRADE, Level 1, Form B
GRADE
--
--
(off level)
--
Listening Comprehension
Sentence & Passage
Comprehension (reading)
--
Key:
DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed
*
In-depth diagnostics as needed for at-risk students and are recommendations only; DIBELS progress-monitoring assessments can be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms.
62
Reading First and John Silber Early Reading Initiatives
Grade 2 Assessment Framework, 2006
SEPTEMBER
Screening/ Diagnostic
Fall Benchmark
COMPONENT
Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics/Word
Identification
Individual
-GRADE, Level 2, Form
A
Word Reading
-Fluency
-DIBELS
Benchmark 1
Nonsense Word
Fluency
AS NEEDED
In-depth
Diagnostic and
Progress
Monitoring*
JANUARY
MAY-JUNE
Outcomes
Spring Benchmark
Winter
Benchmark
Group
Individual
CTOPP
Elision
--
DIBELS
DIBELS
GRADE
Individual
--
GRADE, Level 2,
Form B
(off level)
--
DIBELS
--
Oral Reading
Fluency
--
Word Reading
DIBELS
Benchmark 1
--
DIBELS
--
Benchmark 2
Benchmark 3
Oral Reading Fluency
Oral Reading Fluency
PPVT-III
Vocabulary
Comprehension
GRADE, Level 2, Form
A
--
(listening)
--
Word Meaning (reading)
GRADE, Level 2, Form
A
Listening Comprehension
Sentence & Passage
Comprehension (reading)
Word Meaning (reading)
GRADE
DRP (optional)
(off level)
--
Listening Comprehension
Sentence & Passage
Comprehension
(reading)
In-depth diagnostics as needed for at-risk students and are recommendations only; DIBELS progress monitoring may be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms.
63
--
GRADE, Level 2,
Form B
DRP (optional)
DRP (optional)
*
GRADE, Level 2,
Form B
--
Reading First and John Silber Early Reading Initiatives
Grade 3 Assessment Framework, 2006
SEPTEMBER
Screening/ Diagnostic
Fall Benchmark
COMPONENT
Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics/Word
Identification
Group
Individual
AS NEEDED
In-depth Diagnostic
and Progress
Monitoring*
JANUARY
MAY-JUNE
Outcomes
Spring Benchmark
Winter
Benchmark
Group
Individual
Individual
CTOPP
--
--

--
--
Elision
--
DIBELS
GRADE, Level 3, Form
A
Word Reading
--
DIBELS
--
GRADE, Level 3,
Form B
--
Word Reading
GRADE (off level)
DIBELS
Fluency
DIBELS
--
--
Benchmark 1
Oral Reading
Fluency
DIBELS
-Benchmark 2: Oral
Benchmark 3: Oral
Reading Fluency
Reading Fluency
PPVT-III
Vocabulary
GRADE, Level 3, Form
A
--
(listening)
--
Vocabulary (reading)
Vocabulary (reading)
GRADE, Level 3, Form
A
Comprehension
Listening Comprehension
Sentence and Passage
Comprehension (reading)
GRADE, Level 3,
Form B
DRP (optional)
--
GRADE, Level 3,
Form B
Listening Comprehension
Sentence and Passage
Comprehension (reading)
GRADE (off level)
--
--
DRP (optional)
MCAS
DRP (optional)
Key: CTOPP: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; DRP: Degrees of Reading Power; GRADE: Group Reading Assessment and
Diagnostic Evaluation; PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd Ed
*
In-depth diagnostics as needed for at-risk students and are recommendations only; DIBELS progress-monitoring assessments may be administered as frequently as prudent using alternate forms.
64
65
The Secondary School Reading Model graphic represents the plan to close literacy achievements once
they emerge in grades 4-12 and challenge all students to proficient and advanced literacy in high school.
The elements of this plan are based on the research-based recommendations of recent reports on
adolescent literacy and on the experience gained from the Massachusetts Middle and High School
Reading Initiative. Reading and writing instruction for students in grades 4-12 is divided into two major
components: (1) Literacy instruction across the curriculum for all students; and (2) interventions for
struggling readers and writers.
Reading instruction for all middle and high school students begins with a standardized screening
assessment that assesses students' comprehension abilities. Classroom teachers are skilled in
administering screening and progress monitoring assessments and in using data from these assessments to
inform instruction. All students receive reading and writing instruction across the curriculum on a daily
basis in English language arts and domain-specific classes that integrate literacy skills and content are
teaching. The content of English language arts instruction emphasizes skills identified in the English
language arts standards as informed by research: vocabulary development, comprehension strategies,
advanced word study, building background knowledge, motivation to read, and, intensive writing.
English language arts teachers are prepared to teach reading skills that enable comprehension of a wide
range of fiction and expository text and writing of both fiction and nonfiction. Content area teachers are
prepared to integrate literacy skills and content area instruction. Struggling readers and writers in content
area classes receive support from teachers and interventionists for learning content while learning literacy
strategies. All students in high school are challenged to achieve proficiency or advanced literacy skills in
rigorous courses that have substantial demands for reading sophisticated text and writing content-driven
papers that prepare students for postsecondary education and 21st century careers. Ongoing progress
monitoring using curriculum-based assessments aligned with MCAS enables teachers to determine if
students are making adequate progress toward proficiency in skills assessed by MCAS. The annual
MCAS outcomes assessment for grades 4-8 and grade 10 establishes whether students have attained
proficiency on literacy skills aligned with the English language arts standards
Interventions for struggling readers and writers also begin with screening assessment. Interventionists
who are specially trained to work with adolescents are skilled in assessment as well as providing targeted
interventions. Interventions are provided in addition to English language arts instruction and target
specific skill needs as identified by an item analysis of screening data or additional diagnostic testing.
Some intervention students require significant support for decoding, word study, and fluency. Most,
however, require significant support in vocabulary development, comprehension strategies, writing, and
wide reading of fiction and expository text. Frequent progress monitoring using curriculum-based
assessments provides an indication as to whether gaps in literacy achievement are closing with the goal of
helping all students achieve proficiency on the annual MCAS outcomes assessment in English language
arts in grades 3-8 and 10. In addition to intervention support provided in intervention classes,
interventionists also work with students in their content area classes, helping to build capacity to learn
content simultaneously with developing literacy skills.
In support of literacy instruction integrated with content area teaching, school-based coaches or others
specially trained to work with peers assist classroom teachers in implementing evidence-based practices.
Instructional leaders, including principals and district staff, lend further support in their knowledge of best
practice in adolescent literacy, especially as related to the use of data to inform instruction, reading and
writing across the curriculum, and intervention support for struggling readers in middle and high schools.
66
Appendix F. References
ACT (2006a). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading.
Iowa City, IA: Author. www.act.org.
ACT (2006b). Assessing the college readiness in reading of eighth- and ninth-grade students using ACT’s
EXPLORE. Iowa, City, IA: Author.
Alliance for Excellent Education (2006a). Paying double: Inadequate high schools and community
college remediation. http://www.all4ed.org/publications/StraightAs/Volume6No16.html#Double.
Alliance for Excellent Education (2006b). Writing Next: New Alliance report trumpets writing as an
important component of literacy instruction and as a predictor of academic success.
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/StraightAs/Volume6No20.html.
Alvermann, D.E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research,
34(2), 2002. 189-208.
Alvermann, D.E., & Rush, L.S. (2004). Literacy intervention programs at the middle and high school
levels. In Jetton and J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice. NY: Guilford, 210227.
American Institutes of Research (2003). National survey of America’s college students. Washington, DC:
Author.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of
the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Barton, P.E. (2000). What jobs require: Literacy, education, and training, 1940-2006. Washington, DC:
Educational Testing Service.
Baumann, J.R., and Kame’enui, E.J. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy.
Washington, DC: National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004): Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy: A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. NY: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment.
Phi Delta Kappan.80(2), 139-148.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready for work? Employers’ perspectives on the
basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century workforce. New York, NY:
The Conference Board.
67
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., Gross, M (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back
America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (2001). Put Reading First: The research
building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: The Partnership for Reading, a
collaboration of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, and the U.S. Department of Education.
College Board (2006). College Board standards for college success. English Language Arts. New York,
NY: The College Board.
College Entrance Examination Board (2003). Report of the National Commission on Writing in America’s
Schools and Colleges: The neglected ‘r’: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: The
College Board.
Creech, J., & Hale, G. (2006). Literacy in science: A natural fit. The Science Teacher. 73(2), pp. 22-27).
Curtis, M.E. (2002). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Presentation at the U.S. Department of
Education meeting, Adolescent literacy-research informing practice: A series of workshops, May
20,2002, Baltimore, MD.
Curtis, M.E., & Longo, A.M. (1999). When adolescents can’t read: Methods and materials that work.
Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA.
Darling-Hammond, L. and Bransford (Eds.) (2006). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Early Childhood Advisory Council to the Massachusetts Board of Education (2003). Guidelines for
preschool learning experiences. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.
Finn, C., Julian, L, Petrilli, M.S., & Jacobs, J. (2006). The state of state standards. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Francis, D.J., Kieffer, M., Lesaux, N., Rivera, H., & Rivera, M. (2006a). Research-based
recommendations for instruction and academic interventions: Practice guidelines for the education of
English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Education. www.centeroninstruction.org.
Francis, D.J., Kieffer, M., Lesaux, N., Rivera, H., & Rivera, M. (2006b). Research-based
recommendations for serving adolescent newcomers: Practical guidelines for the education of
English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Education. www.centeroninstruction.org.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2006). Writing Next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in
middle and high schools. A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
Harris, K., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of
struggling young writers: effects of self-regulatory strategy development with and without peer
support. American Educational Research Journal. 43(2), 295-340.
68
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Hiebert, E., & Kamil, M. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
International Reading Association (2004). Response to intervention in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 2004. Newark, DE: Author.
http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/IDEA_RTI_report.pdf.
International Reading Association in collaboration with the National Council of Teachers of English,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, & National
Council for the Social Studies (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches. New
York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Jetton, T.L., & Alexander, P.A. (2004). Domains, teaching and literacy. In T.L. Jetton & J.A. Dole
(eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice, pp. 15-39. New York: Guilford Press.
Joftus, S. (2002). Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education for all middle and high
school students. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Kamil, M.L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education. http://www.all4ed.org/publications/AdolscentsAndLiteracy.pdf.
Learning First Alliance (2000). Every child reading: A professional development guide. Washington, DC:
Learning First Alliance.
Lenz, B.K., Ehren, B.J., & Deshler, D.D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform
framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children. 37(6),
60-63.
Linan-Thompson, S. (2006). Tailoring literacy instruction to special education populations. Presentation
at the NGA Middle Grades Literacy Forum, September 28-29, 2006, Phoenix, AZ.
McConachie, S., Hall, M., Resnick, L., Ravi, A.K., Bill, V.L., Bintz, J., & Taylor, J.A. (2006, October).
Task, text, and talk: Literacy for all subjects. Educational Leadership. 64(2), 8-14.
MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research. NY:
Guilford Press.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2001). Massachusetts English Language Arts curriculum
framework. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2003). English language proficiency benchmarks and outcomes
for English language learners. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2004). Supplement to the Massachusetts English Language Arts
Curriculum Framework. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2004). Foundations of Reading Test. Massachusetts Tests for
Educator Licensure (MTEL). Malden, MA: Author.
69
Massachusetts Department of Education (2005, June). Guidelines for using MEPA results to plan
Sheltered English Immersion (SEI) instructional planning and make classification decisions for
Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2005, October). Dropouts in Massachusetts public schools:
2003-2004. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2006a, September) Framework for Leadership and Action.
Draft document. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2006b, September). Spring 2006 MCAS tests: Summary of state
results. Malden, MA: Author. http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2006/results/summary.pdf.
Massachusetts Department of Education (2006c, October). Massachusetts Science and
Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Malden, MA: Author.
Massachusetts High School Reform Alliance (2005). Redesigning the American high school:
Massachusetts proposal. Submitted jointly by Governor Mitt Romney and Education Commissioner
David P. Driscoll to the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Boston, MA:
Author.
MassInc. (2001). New skills for a new economy. Boston, MA: Author.
http://www.massinc.org/index.php?id=60
Meltzer, J., with Smith, N.C., & Clark, H. (2001). Adolescent literacy resources: Linking research and
practice. Providence, RI: LAB at Brown University, The Education Alliance.
Moats, L. (1999). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and
be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Moats, L. (2001, March). When older kids can’t read. Educational Leadership. 58(6), 36-40.
http://www.scoe.org/reading/docs/older_091103.pdf.
Montelongo, J., Berber-Jimenez, L., Hernandez, A., & Hosking, D. (2006). Teaching expository text
structure. The Science Teacher, 73(2), pp. 28-31.
Moore, D.W., Bean, T.W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J.A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position
statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Murphy, J. (2004). Leadership for literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998). Learning to read and write:
Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. A joint position statement of the
International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of Secondary School Principals (2005). Creating a culture of literacy: A guide for
middle and high school principals. Reston, VA: Author.
70
National Association of State Boards of Education (2005, October). Reading at risk: The state response
to the crisis in adolescent literacy. The report of the NASBE study group on middle and high school
literacy. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). The nation’s report card: State profiles. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Mathematics and reading trial urban district assessment.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/tuda.asp.
National Council of Teachers of English (nd). Develop an elementary school writing policy.
http://www.ncte.org/prog/writing/policy/110613.htm.
National Council of Teachers of English (nd). Planning a secondary school-wide writing policy.
http://www.ncte.org/prog/writing/policy/110594.htm.
National Institute for Literacy (2004, February). Report on activities and accomplishments. Washington,
DC: Author. http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/publications/accomplish.pdf.
National Institute for Literacy, The Partnership for Reading (2006). National Early Literacy Panel:
Synthesizing the scientific research on development of early literacy in young children.
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/family/ncfl/search=%22national%20early%20literacy%20
panel%22.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Report of the Subgroups.
Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Rand Reading Study Group chaired by C. Snow (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research
and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Resnick, L., & Zurawsky, C. (2005). Getting back on course: Standards-based reform and accountability.
American Educator. http://www.aft.org/pub-reports/american-educator/issues/spring05/resnick.htm.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Short, D.J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2006). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language
and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. A report to the Carnegie
Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M.S. (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing
teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
71
Snow, C.E., Ippolito, J., & Schwartz, R. (2006). What we know and what we need to know about literacy
coaches in middle and high schools: A research synthesis and proposed research agenda. In
International Reading Association in collaboration with the National Council of Teachers of English,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, & National
Council for the Social Studies, Standards for middle and high school literacy coaches, pp. 35-49.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Strickland, D., & Alvermann, D.E., (Eds.) (2004). Bridging the literacy achievement gap: Grades 4-12.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Strickland, D., & Kamil, M., (Eds.). (2004). Improving reading achievement through professional
development. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Strickland, D.S. & Snow, C. (2002). Preparing our teachers: Opportunities for better reading instruction.
Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Sturtevant, E. (2003). The literacy coach: A key to improving teaching and learning in middle and high
schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/LiteracyCoach.pdf
Tomlinson, C.A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into
Practice. 44(2), 160-166.
Tough, P. (2006, November 26). What it takes to make a student. The New York Times Magazine. 44-51,
69-72, 77.
U.S. Department of Education (2006). Expanding the reach of scientifically based reading research in
Title I schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts (2003). 3-Tier reading model: Reducing reading
difficulties for kindergarten through third grade students. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Vaughn
Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts.
Western Interstate Commission of Higher Education (2006). Accelerated learning options: Moving the
need on access and success: A study of state and institutional practices. Boulder, CO: Author.
72