Let’s start leveling about leveling

Glasswell, Kath, & Ford, Michael. (2011). Let’s start leveling about leveling. Language Arts, 88(3), 208-216.

It seems that we never learn in the field of reading instruction; we just keep making the same mistakes. As long ago as 1983, a literacy researcher named Elfrieda Hiebert (see here) published a convincing indictment of the practice of grouping students by ability (google her name to find references to her work). Some of the same arguments she made against ability grouping are made by Glasswell and Ford against today’s form of reading groups, leveling. Children placed at the lower levels actually end up doing less reading because the texts they read have fewer words in them. Since we know that more reading leads to better reading, the result is a widening of the gap between the children labeled as “high” readers and the children labeled as “low” readers. In addition, Glasswell and Ford argue that children reading at the lower levels are often reading texts that do not challenge or engage them, which leads to reduced motivation to read, which in turn may lead to less reading.

The current push for easily quantifiable literacy assessments, one-size-fits-all approaches, and simplistic solutions to complex problems, will not be stopped until people finally realize that it just plain isn’t working, and that we still have kids who are struggling to read. As the authors of this article ask, “Just how do half of the readers from a school with a stable population and a comprehensive literacy program, including small-group instruction with leveled readers, arrive at fourth grade reading below grade level?”

I am not sure how influential this article will be in making a difference in the current situation. First, by publishing in this particular journal, which definitely leans in a particular theoretical direction, the authors are, unfortunately, “preaching to the choir.” In addition, though the article is beautifully organized around five clearly articulated principles, and is loaded with some solid research citations, it is in essence an essay rather than an article describing “hard” research with solid data. The authors do discuss some of their own classroom research, and in fact, the portion where they describe their own observations that children who are placed at the same level can have widely differing literacy needs, is arguably one of the strongest, most powerful portions of the article. More about that research, published in a journal with more balance in its theoretical orientation (e.g., the IRA’s The Reading Teacher or even Reading Research Quarterly) might have more impact and change potential. Finally, the instructional suggestions provided at the end are disappointing, and are too brief and generic for most classroom teachers to sink their teeth into. Until we have some well-developed, fleshed-out, specific alternative strategies, teachers and districts will continue to embrace simplistic ones.