Who Gets to Read What? Tracking, Instructional Practices, and Text Complexity for Middle School Struggling Readers

Abstract

In this study, the authors used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 to examine the instructional time allocation and instructional practices in eighth‐grade English language arts classes for struggling readers, as measured by track level. The authors also analyze the titles and text complexity of the last three books assigned to students. The authors found that track level continues to be a significant predictor of what happens instructionally in the classroom. Struggling readers placed in low‐track classes spent a larger portion of class time on skills and strategy instruction, completing worksheets, watching videos, and reading aloud than students in grade‐level classes. Students in high‐track classes spent more time on literature analysis, comprehension instruction, and group projects and were more frequently assigned homework than students in grade‐level classes. Although there was considerable overlap in the text complexity and the text titles of books assigned at each track level, students in low‐track classes read less challenging texts than students in grade‐level or above‐grade‐level classes. Regression models controlling for a variety of student, teacher, and school variables, including student achievement, show that these adjustments in class time allocation, instructional practices, and text complexity go above and beyond what would be expected based on student achievement alone.

Making sense of reading’s forever wars

“…However, there is little evidence to suggest that whole language or balanced literacy approaches are more common in schools that are racially segregated and/or serve mainly low-income children. In fact, the available evidence suggests the opposite: Children in under-resourced schools and children who have been labeled “poor readers” are more likely to be taught “the basics” (e.g., letter-sound correspondence) and less likely to be given opportunities to engage with complex ideas found in texts (Bacon, Connor, & Ferri, 2016; Eppley & Dudley-Marling, 2019; Haberman, 1991; Northrop & Kelly, 2019).…”

School-to-School Differences in Instructional Practice: New Descriptive Evidence on Opportunity to Learn

“…Even when overall patterns of adaptation are generally positive, as in reading instruction, maladaptation in specific contexts may arise. For example, focusing on differences by student track level in 8th grade, Northrop and Kelly (2019) found that on a variety of dimensions, including the complexity of the texts teachers select for students, instruction is more disparate than would be predicted based on student achievement level. This finding is consistent with literature on teacher adaptations in expectations and evaluative standards (Kelly & Carbonaro, 2012;Stevens & Van Houtte, 2011).…”

Of Research Reviews and Practice Guides: Translating Rapidly Growing Research on Adolescent Literacy Into Updated Practice Recommendations

“…Based on this evidence, the guide’s authors recommend five instructional practices: Provide explicit vocabulary instruction, provide explicit comprehension strategy instruction, provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation, increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning, and make available intensive and individualized interventions for struggling readers that can be provided by trained specialists. This guide is widely read among policymakers and has been cited hundreds of times by researchers, including Baye and colleagues (2019) and in other recent RRQ articles (Boardman, Boelé, & Klingner, 2018; Northrop & Kelly, 2019; Proctor, Silverman, Harring, Jones, & Hartranft, 2020).…”