Race, Response to Intervention, and Reading Research

Abstract

In this critique, race is centralized to draw attention to the role it plays in the complex evolution of response to intervention, past and present. I use a critical race theory analytical lens to focus on how the dominant narrative serves as a framework within institutional and political structures in support of the approach. A brief overview of anti-discrimination laws and policies is followed by several historical narratives that are used to convey the intersecting nature of early reading and special education research. The body of research is employed to articulate the goals and purpose of the intervention, sans a clear commitment to addressing racial disproportionality. This critique particularly exposes how response to intervention has neither improved reading achievement nor curtailed racial disproportionality, and emphasizes that reading research is complicit in the reproduction of racial inequality in education. I conclude with a call to action.

If “Black Lives Matter in Literacy Research,” Then Take This Racial Turn: Developing Racial Literacies

“…Muhammad, 2020; Parker, 2020; Tatum, 2009), literary and literacies traditions (Belt-Beyan, 2004; Fisher, 2009; Harris, 1992; McHenry, 2002; Ntiri, 2014; Power-Carter et al, 2019; Richardson, 2003; Willis, 2002), digital tool uses (Lewis Ellison, 2017; Lewis Ellison & Solomon, 2019; Tichavakunda & Tierney, 2018), reading and writing practices (Asher, 1978; Austin, 1972; Guillory & Gifford, 1980; Guthrie et al, 2009; McHenry & Heath, 1994; G. E. Muhammad et al, 2017; Tatum, 2009), gifts, talents and high-achievement (Ford, 1995; Ford et al, 2018; Grantham et al, 2011), assessment data indicators (Anderson, 2007; Cohen et al, 2012; Ferguson, 2003; Flowers, 2016; Irvine, 1990; Smith et al, 2019; Thompson & Shamberger, 2015; Willis, 2019), family and community literacies (Edwards, 1993; Gadsden, 1992; Heath, 1983/2008, especially the often overlooked “Black townspeople”; Johnson, 2010; Lewis, 2013), youth literacies (Carter, 2007; Kinloch et al, 2017; Kirkland & Jackson, 2009; Morrell, 2008), or racial literacies (Croom, in press) of Black children and adults without accounting for and examining the historical and current practices and consequences of race? For that matter, in the United States (and other racially Westernized contexts), how does “literacy” of any kind, for any racially classified group, make sense without accounting for the ongoing racialization of human beings that began in Western Europe?…”

“…As this special issue demonstrates, somehow our institution seems none the wiser. Looking back beyond the last 4 years, then, the institution of literacy research has been mighty, mighty quiet about race for as far back as we can see (in contrast to significant individual or group work by fellow literacy scholars and “race critical” scholarship within and beyond our field [Croom, 2020]; see a review of multimodal literacies by Mills & Unsworth, 2018; also consider literacy research historically with Alexander & Fox, 2004; Gray, 1969; Lalik & Hinchman, 2001; Hoffman, Hikida, & Sailors, 2020; Martin et al, 2013; Morrison et al, 2011; Parsons et al, 2020; Pearson, 1984; Shanahan, 2020; Shanahan & Neuman, 1997; Willis, 2019).…”

Conflict or Conversation? Media Portrayals of the Science of Reading

“…40), and Hoffman et al (2020) asserted that the SOR community's reductionist framing of science has "be[en] used to shape public policy and silence other perspectives" (p. S258). When shrouded in equity discourse (Willis, 2019), the weaponization of science also has constricted how inequities have been addressed in reading policy, funneling equity into "a single story" (Adichie, as cited by Willis, 2018, p. 31) of minoritized students' educational access and opportunity that has excluded cultural, linguistic, and affective aspects of reading. This is not dissimilar to how science has been wielded historically in the co-construction of deviance, disability, and race (Artiles, 2011), diverting attention from the sociopolitical contexts where reading happens and obscuring how systemic inequities get reproduced.…”

“…This has critical implications for the field of reading research, including how inequities are addressed. The media has highlighted socioeconomic inequities, arguing that more and better phonics instruction will address educational inequities (Thomas, 2020a), yet this same equity discourse has diverted attention away from deeply rooted inequities, particularly systemic racism (Milner, 2020; Willis, 2019).…”

Contesting Science That Silences: Amplifying Equity, Agency, and Design Research in Literacy Teacher Preparation

“…Willis (2019) asked the field to consider how the SOR community’s version of science (that silences) is one that perpetuates racist and oppressive practices and divisions. She argued that “scientific racism attempts to justify White superiority using scientific methods as an inviolable source of knowledge and camouflaging with coded language: biological , genetic , inheritable , intelligence testing , meritocracy , neutral , objective , and so on” (p. 396).…”