Literacy Instruction for All Students Within General Education Settings

Literacy Instruction in General Education Settings

If effective instructional practices, delivered in separate special education classrooms, work—if they result in students with extensive support needs acquiring important literacy skills—why does it matter where this instruction takes place? Toews and Kurth (2019) insist that the instructional setting does matter. They highlight federal education law and recent case law that mandate that all students participate in and make progress in meeting grade level standards. They also emphasize the strong research base documenting positive academic outcomes for students who receive instruction alongside their general education peers. We agree that the context for instruction is crucial for many reasons. An often overlooked but fundamental aspect of literacy is its social nature; interactions with others are at the heart of literacy (Koppenhaver, n.d.; Morgan, Cuskelly, & Moni, 2011; Papen, 2016). Literacy acts often occur within the typical social interactions we have with others each day. Very young children, for example, engaging in pretend play will often “write” messages or labels for their play that, even though they may just be scribbles or letter strings, convey meaning to their play partners and advance their games. Older individuals daily engage in multiple literacy practices that convey meaning to others (e.g., texting, sending a birthday card to a friend). Even reading a book or online text involves an inner dialogue of sorts with the author of the text in an attempt to understand what is read. The social nature of literacy supports skill acquisition for students with extensive support needs who learn best when literacy instruction has authentic purposes, is embedded in meaningful activities, when there are peers present to model literacy skills, and when the students are part of a community of learners (Keefe, Copeland, Luckasson, & Ryndak, 2018). Teacher expectations and the resulting opportunities they provide students with extensive support needs to learn and practice literacy skills also appear critical in understanding the importance of context for literacy instruction. Toews and Kurth (2019) describe multiple studies that document this finding, including Ruppar, Fisher, Olson, and Orlando’s (2018) startling finding that exposure to academic literacy for students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms was 10 times greater than for students in settings where students without disabilities were not present (e.g., self-contained classrooms).

We contend that literacy is a human right (Copeland, Keefe, & Luckasson, 2018; Keefe & Copeland, 2011), and findings showing that literacy instruction focused on academic knowledge is provided more frequently in inclusive settings than in separate segregated settings simply cannot be ignored. To do so perpetuates the long history of excluding students with extensive support needs from opportunities to engage in rigorous academic instruction and literacy environments (Copeland et al., 2018). Controlling who has access to literacy instruction has long been used to subjugate groups of people, and indeed, “people with extensive support needs represent the last group of people denied opportunities for literacy instruction” (Keefe & Copeland, 2011, p. 92). We welcome Toews and Kurth’s (2019) call to the field for renewed efforts to reimagine how and where literacy learning opportunities are offered to students with extensive support needs.

Future Directions

Having established the efficacy of literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs, documented the critical nature of the context in which instruction takes place, and established the legal and legislative mandates supporting inclusive education, where does the field go from here? Toews and Kurth (2019) answer that question by calling for research investigating the application of practices substantiated as evidence-based in separate special education settings to general education settings. They also emphasize the need for development and evaluation of new literacy instructional practices within general education classrooms.

Classrooms are complex environments that place multiple, often competing, demands on educators. Researchers cannot deny the very real concerns of many educators about the “how-to” of including students with extensive support needs in literacy instruction within general education. Toews and Kurth (2019) respond to this concern by emphasizing that a central focus for future research is the development of practical, effective models for delivering literacy instruction for all students in a general education classroom. Instructional models must account for the barriers that exist (e.g., teachers’ knowledge of evidence-based practices or low expectations of the learning potential of students with extensive support needs). This process should include teachers as research partners in the design and implementation of instructional models; interventions in much of the current research have been implemented by highly trained research assistants, not classroom teachers, and as Toews and Kurth (2019) note, this negatively affects the social validity of research outcomes. If educators are to embrace the call to include students with extensive support needs in literacy instruction within general education settings, teachers must know not just how to utilize instructional strategies but also feel confident in their abilities to plan and manage instruction. This necessitates instructional models that are a good contextual fit with general education learning environments.

Hunt et al. (2019) describes one example of how to design and implement rigorous research that involves educators in socially valid ways. She and her colleagues designed and implemented a randomized control trial study to examine systematic, comprehensive literacy instruction delivered in a small group format within general education classroom literacy blocks. Student participants had extensive support needs and a substantial number did not use speech to communicate. Participants’ special education teachers and paraeducators delivered the instruction in general education settings after receiving training on the program used (Early Literacy Skill Builders; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Gibbs, & Flowers, 2008). An essential component of the model was including reading buddies, typically developing peers in the same grade, as part of the four students in each small group. This format capitalizes on the social nature of literacy and provided strong models of what Kliewer calls “literate citizenship” (Kliewer, 2008) for the children with extensive support needs. Results indicated that students with extensive support needs in the treatment group made significant increases in skills across time, and their scores on standardized and researcher-developed literacy measures were higher on all measures than students in the control group, with the exception of vocabulary skills which were similar across groups.

Although Hunt et al. (2019) designed a model of instruction that accounts for many of the potential pitfalls that might occur in implementing literacy instruction in general education classrooms and included a qualitative study to examine the social validity of the model from the perspective of the educators, school administrators, and reading buddies, they acknowledged that only 4% of their participants actually received the majority of their education within general education classrooms. This underscores the need for Toews and Kurth’s (2019) call to action: Most children with extensive needs for support are not currently authentic members of general education classrooms (e.g., Ryndak et al., 2014) and, based on current research findings, are therefore not receiving the rigorous, appropriate literacy education that can lead to positive outcomes and meaningful participation in the literate community (e.g., Ruppar, 2015).

We would add two additional critical aspects that must be considered to address the call to action by Toews and Kurth (2019). First, influencing and educating policymakers, administrators, and other educational leaders about literacy instruction for students with extensive needs for support must be addressed as a critical element of the context of future research investigating inclusive literacy practices. Parents and families are part of this broader context, and we need them to respond with targeted advocacy on behalf of their children with extensive support needs, to heed this call to action, and support a change in the location and models of literacy instruction. Without their support for systems change, it is unlikely that sustained changes in policies and funding needed to facilitate inclusive literacy instruction across districts and states will occur. Second, general and special teacher educators must respond by making changes to preservice and inservice teachers’ preparation to equip them with the pedagogical skills, dispositions, and experiential learning opportunities to provide all students effective literacy instruction within general education classrooms.

Conclusion

Toews and Kurth (2019) have challenged researchers and educational practitioners to take what has been learned about literacy instruction for students with extensive support needs and apply it within general education environments. This represents a much-needed step to maximize what we know about the importance of context in facilitating learning. Achieving this goal will not be simple nor will it occur quickly, given the complexity of school environments and the long history of denying these learners access to equitable learning environments. Changes in the opportunities offered and outcomes experienced by students with extensive support needs is possible and we strongly support this call to move forward.