Search

A digital platform is a networked infrastructure that allows people to engage in various kinds of interactions: social, economic, political, educational. Digital platforms can play a fundamental part of today's English language arts (ELA) classroom. Students read, write, view, connect, and interact with, on, and through a kaleidoscope of digital platforms. Google Docs, Turnitin, and Flip, among many others, have become part of the very infrastructure of classroom life (Garcia & Nichols, 2021). These same platforms are further used by educators, administrators, and third-party companies to instruct, assess, track, communicate with, respond to, and discipline students. This policy brief examines how digital platforms have been used in ELA Education and concludes with recommendations for teachers, administrators, and policymakers who implement digital platforms in the ELA classroom.

While text selection is indeed a crucial choice that transmits explicit and implicit messages to students about what literature is and why it matters, it remains one element that needs to be put into conversation with a broader set of considerations in order for educators to fully grapple with the nature and purpose of rigorous and transformative literature instruction. This brief is organized to address this full range of considerations, encompassing: (1) Purpose: Why should educators teach literature? (2) Practice: How should educators teach literature? and (3) Picks: What literature should educators teach? The principles promoted in this brief to guide the teaching of literature in the secondary English classroom are grounded in specific values that reflect how the authors interpret the role of public education in U.S. society. The authors structure their discussion of purpose, practice, and picks of literature instruction within what they consider to be the fundamental promise of literacy education--the cultivation of critical knowledge, skills, and dispositions that young people can leverage to design a more equitable, just, and empathetic democratic future.

This policy brief aims to problematize the curricular issues that have traditionally framed schools from the 1600s onward. These framings have taught literacy as decontextualized skills, disconnected from students' lives, their consciousness, and their joy. This tradition has resulted in poor achievement, less rigor, and a lack of intellectual advancement, identity development, and developing social and critical consciousness among youth. These problems are especially exacerbated for students and teachers of color, who have received fewer resources, curricula, or pedagogies that are connected to their genius and needs. Further, policy mandates are typically written to exclude the histories, identities, literacies, and liberation of the same students underserved by our educational system. In fact, policy has pushed the teaching of frameworks and theories that were not written by people of color, nor do they honor the lenses of Black and Brown people. When the problems of schools are coupled with the witnessing of injustices and racism in society, one can argue that schools must prepare a type of child who will have the potential to enter the world ready to disrupt and dismantle hurt, pain, and harm and advance social change. In other words, skill instruction is not enough to sustain a society imbued with inequities. In this policy brief, Gholnecsar (Gholdy) Muhammad discusses the problems of decontextualized, skills-only instruction and suggest ways policymakers can move toward more excellent forms of education.

The guidelines that follow draw upon the researchers' own experiences as authors, editors, and reviewers but are also informed by the generous contributions of members of the scholarly community. In an attempt to hear other voices and learn about situations outside their own experiences, the authors of this statement invited authors and editors to share stories about their experiences with publication, both positive and negative. they observed, in reviewing the stories their colleagues shared, that they coalesced around the following categories: transparency about time and timelines; mentoring and revision; publication decisions: gatekeeping and inclusivity; conflicts of interest; intellectual property and citation; journal management; and naming and citation practices. They used these categories to organize their recommendations in order to highlight the different aspects of editorial work that need to be considered and to suggest that all participants in academic publishing have a role to play in fostering ethical editorial practices. Because individuals inhabit different roles at different times in their professional careers, sometimes simultaneously, it may be helpful to think of editorial ethics as a larger ecosystem with all participants contributing to the health and sustainability of that environment. [This statement was created by the 2022 Task Force to Develop a "Position Statement: Principles for Equitable and Ethical Scholarship in Writing, Rhetoric, and Composition Studies."]

This brief aims to contextualize and promote translanguaging as an approach to educating bi-/ multilingual students in US literacy classrooms. Broadly, "translanguaging" has been defined as "the deployment of a speaker's full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages" (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, p. 281) and "an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students' diverse and dynamic language practices in teaching and learning" (Vogel & García, 2017, p. 1). To take up a translanguaging perspective, then, means creating opportunities for bi-/multilingual students to "engage in literacy in ways that deepen their understanding of texts, generate more diverse texts, develop students' confianza in performing literacies, and foster their critical metalinguistic awareness" (García & Kleifgen, 2020, p. 561)--no matter what the language of instruction. The brief begins by foregrounding bi-/multilingualism as the longstanding norm in the United States and describing translanguaging as a lens for understanding and organizing instruction around students' dynamic language practices. The authors provide research-based examples from classrooms that have taken up translanguaging and describe the creative and critical literacies (Li Wei, 2011) that came to the surface as a result. Lastly, they explore policies that would enable schools and teachers to recognize bi-/multilingualism as the norm and leverage it for language and literacy learning.

Students are often portrayed as mindless consumers of popular culture, but a spike in social media engagement by Millennials and Generation Z reveals that K-12 youth are often at the helm of creating media content and impacting the trends which constitute popular culture. Coupled with the realities of this shifting landscape, an increasingly diverse student population throughout the United States is faced with a static literary canon within English and language arts (ELA) classrooms that continues to prioritize white, Eurocentric texts. Much research has delineated the kinds of harm this lack of representation perpetuates for all students, but particularly for racially and linguistically minoritized students who continue to be marginalized by curriculum. New perspectives are urgently needed in ELA to help teachers critically engage media and popular culture to avoid continued harm and to center students as critically engaged members of a new digital social reality. One crucial orientation for doing this is understanding that the existing digitally mediated reality is neither ideologically nor politically neutral. For this reason, critical media literacy must attend to the politics of digital tools and platforms. This brief is divided into three sections that discuss: (1) unpacking the sites of media (and pedagogy); (2) moving beyond media consumption toward production, dissemination, and invention; and (3) recommendations for policy and practice.

Racial literacy is a skill and practice by which individuals can probe the existence of racism and examine the effects of race and institutionalized systems on their experiences and representation in US society. Students who have this skill can discuss the implications of race and American racism in constructive ways. Racially literate teachers develop curricula that are centered on fostering open-mindedness, commitment to inquiry and reflection, and exploration of ideas connected to the concepts of democracy and equity in schooling. A desired outcome of racial literacy in an outwardly racist society like America is for members of the dominant racial category to adopt an antiracist stance and for persons of color to resist a victim stance. Thus, racial literacy in English classrooms is the ability to read, discuss, and write about situations that involve race or racism. This brief is divided into four sections that discuss: (1) what racial literacy is; (2) racial literacy in teacher education; (3) enacting racial literacy; and (4) racial literacy development model of teaching and learning.

As Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) works to combat white supremacy, create accessible spaces, demand Black linguistic justice, and commit to "the work of antiracist change-making," this work is incomplete without addressing the transphobia and queerphobia inherent to white supremacy. Queer of color, trans of color, and crip scholars have proven that dominant conceptions of gender and sexuality were built on and built for white supremacy and have been used to exclude, dehumanize, and persecute Black, Indigenous, and other people of color regardless of gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Following the lead of the Black Technical and Professional Writing Task Force, the authors have created a resource-rich document with a portfolio of ongoing commitments with the express goal of creating campuses that support LGBTQIA+ students', staff members', and teachers' access to the full range of their human experiences. This statement serves as a model for reframing LGBTQIA+ issues and undertaking specific actions that create supportive institutions and learning environments for students, staff, and faculty working on campuses.

Contemporary nonfiction for young people plays a crucial role in the reading and writing lives of K-12 students. It is a rich and compelling genre that supports students' development as critically, visually, and informationally literate 21st century thinkers and creators. Unlike many textbooks and materials written for online or print-based school curriculum, nonfiction literature for young people does more than communicate information. Nonfiction literature contextualizes primary source evidence, offers multiple perspectives on current and historic events, and shares new scientific discoveries. Contemporary nonfiction addresses historical silences; explores historic and contemporary events rooted in racism, oppression, and violence; and highlights courageous trailblazers and organized groups working toward societal transformation and liberation. The purpose of this position statement is to propose a paradigm shift for teaching and learning with nonfiction literature in K-12 education.

Book groups are gatherings of readers who aspire to remain lifelong learners. Educators who read and enjoy quality fiction and non-fiction contribute with confidence to the rich, literate environment of classrooms. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) expresses, through rich policy statements and other published works, the vital nature of professional learning for literacy educators and the essential role of reading as part of our daily and professional lives. The guidance presented in this position statement offers insight and strong practice on forming book groups among literacy educators.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created not only an unprecedented public health crisis but also significant challenges for educators and educational institutions. In response, professionals must reassess current restrictions on assembly and mobility as well as imagine new means for meeting goals. All familiar educational routines--for example, meeting in classrooms--must be refigured as social distancing mandates direct people to remain isolated and to avoid public spaces where human contact is possible. Typically, writing courses have small class sizes and include significant levels of interaction, group work, and peer-to-peer discussion. For this reason, holding classes online rather than in person is the safest instructional approach for reducing exposure to and circulation of the novel coronavirus. The goal of this statement is to provide guidance on effective pedagogy in a unique set of conditions. Drawing explicitly from professional statements, guidelines, and resources that have been produced by the National Council of Teachers of English and other professional organizations, CCCC and CWPA offer guidance to best support students and instructors adapting to program and classroom changes in the coming year.

The Students' Right to Read provides resources that can be used to help discuss and ensure students' free access to all texts. The genesis of the Students' Right to Read was an original Council statement, "Request for Reconsideration of a Work," prepared by the Committee on the Right to Read of the National Council of Teachers of English and revised by Ken Donelson. The current Students' Right to Read statement presented in this position statement represents an updated second edition that builds on the work of Council members dedicated to ensuring students the freedom to choose to read any text and opposing "efforts of individuals or groups to limit the freedom of choice of others." Supported through references from text challenges and links to resources, this statement discusses the history and dangers of text censorship which highlight the breadth and significance of the Students' Right to Read. The statement then culminates in processes that can be followed with different stakeholders when students' reading rights are infringed. [This statement was originally developed in 1981, revised April 2009 to adhere to NCTE's Policy on Involvement of People of Color, and revised again in September 2018.]

The term "standardized" tests is often heard along with "high-stakes." Standardized tests are administered, scored, and interpreted in a consistent way, so that the performances of large groups of students can be compared. They are not in themselves high-stakes, but they are often used for high-stakes purposes such as determining which students will pass or graduate, which teachers are fired or given raises, and which schools are reorganized or given more funding. Heard less frequently are discussions of the effects of high-stakes standardized tests on student learning. Research shows that these effects include changing the nature of teaching, narrowing the curriculum, and limiting student learning. English language arts (ELA) teachers and their students feel these effects with special force because literacy is central in most standardized tests. Standardized tests have powerful and often negative effects on student learning, but their negative effects can be reduced by measures such as the following policy recommendations offered in this brief: (1) Employing multiple assessments of student achievement so that standardized tests are administered alongside broader, more comprehensive measures of student learning; (2) Representing standardized tests to students as one type of assessment among several and help students understand how this type of assessment functions; (3) Ensuring that the standardized tests being used are valid and reliable for the populations of students being tested; and (4) Providing special accommodations such as allowing extra time, dictation, and translators for English language learners and other students with special need.[This policy brief was produced with assistance from Ann Burke, Gail Gibson, James Hammond, Anna Knutson, Ryan McCarty, Chris Parsons, Molly Parsons, Elizabeth Tacke, and Bonnie Tucker.]

"The Students' Right to Read," published in 1961, revised in 1981, and reaffirmed by the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Executive Committee in 2012, responds to censorship or attempts to restrict or deny students access to materials deemed objectionable by some individual or group. Despite this position statement and the continuing efforts of NCTE's Anti-Censorship Center, censorship continues in the classrooms of many English language arts teachers, and recently it has taken new and less obvious forms. This Policy Research Brief discusses the various dimensions and implications of censorship and provides policy recommendations.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English Language Arts (ELA), designed to make students college and career ready, were released in June 2010, and have since been adopted by 45 states seeking to be eligible for Race to the Top funds offered by the US Department of Education. The states that signed on with the CCSS agreed to fully implement these standards by the 2014-2015 academic year, the same year when the assessments for CCSS will be launched. Developers of the CCSS describe six instructional shifts that will be necessary to the implementation of the ELA standards. They are: (1) Balancing informational and literary texts; (2) Building knowledge in disciplines; (3) Moving up the staircase of textual complexity; (4) Focusing on text-based answers; (5) Writing from sources; and (6) Creating an academic vocabulary. This Brief reviews research on current implementations, considers research on learning theory in relation to implementing the CCSS, draws on research to explore implications of the forthcoming assessments, and offers recommendations for ongoing implementation.

First-year writing (FYW) courses, long a common introductory experience for college students, regardless of location or institution type, are currently being challenged by a number of alternatives. These challenges include online courses and/or MOOCS, various "test-out" options, and dual-enrollment programs. Although they differ from one another in approach, all of these alternatives disrupt the traditional face-to-face FYW courses that strengthen students' writing abilities and play a key role in orienting students to post-secondary study. The current economic pressures on students and their families to complete degrees as quickly as possible and on higher education to limit the number of small enrollment courses make alternatives look especially attractive. In this current economic environment, it is important to consider research on what FYW courses contribute to undergraduate education and what might be lost if FYW courses were no longer part of the experience of students beginning their college careers. This issue presents a discussion regarding the fact that research reveals personal attention and low student/teacher ratios are key factors in college student retention, both of which are provided by FYW courses. Furthermore, FYW courses have been identified by researchers as fostering engagement (a sense of investment and involvement in learning) along with persistence (the ability to sustain interest in an attention to short and long-term projects). In addition, FYW courses provide students with rhetorical skills they can use in-or transfer to-many other disciplinary contexts. Studies show that metacognitive awareness which is also nurtured in FYW courses can help students engage more productively with and better understand instructor feedback, and more generally, to articulate the strengths and weaknesses of their own writing. Metacognition also goes hand-in hand with students' sense of responsibility and ownership towards their work and learning. As education policy increasingly focuses on notions of career and college readiness, research shows that common practices in first-year college writing classes reinforce the intellectual habits and behaviors needed for success in postsecondary studies or the workplace. Alternate routes to satisfy first-year writing requirements, such as online courses, test-out options, or dual enrollment coursework, can offer students useful preparation for FYW courses. However, such instruction cannot fully replicate the experiences of FYW because high school students' social and cognitive development is at a different level, and because none of the alternatives can provide the sustained attention to developing the habits of mind and strategies fostered in FYW.

It is the policy of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) that it demonstrate sensitivity to the concerns of people of color and they be represented on all Council-sponsored programs, and that a similar policy be urged on affiliated organizations (conferences, assemblies, and affiliates). To this end, the following actions are to be undertaken: (1) to include people of color on all appointed commissions, boards, committees, task forces, and other official groups; (2) to include people of color among the leadership of the above groups; (3) to include people of color among the nominees presented by each nominating committee; (4) to include in NCTE conventions and workshops sessions dealing with interests of people of color and using as leaders or consultants practicing teachers of color from the levels of instruction concerned; and (5) to include people of color in verbal and visual materials intended to represent or describe NCTE.

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) represents teachers and scholars of writing and speaking whose work in and beyond colleges and universities regularly extends to sites for online learning, professional workplaces, and both near and far-flung communities. This statement provides guidelines for understanding, assessing, and valuing the community-engaged work colleagues may undertake across career stages, ranks, and roles. As such, it underscores the worth community-engaged work can have for individual participants, participating campuses, and disciplines associated with CCCC. [This statement replaces the CCCC Position Statement on Faculty Work in Community-Based Settings, November 2014.]

A subcommittee of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) Executive Committee wrote the "NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing" in 2004. In over a decade since, the everyday experience of writing in people's lives has expanded dramatically. Increasingly, handheld devices are important instruments for people's writing, integrated tightly, nearly seamlessly, with their composing in video, photographs, and other media. Geographic location and embodied presence have become more salient to writing than at most times in human history. The ways writing and the spoken voice are mutually supportive in writing processes have become increasingly facilitated by technological capabilities. Globalized economies and relative ease of transportation have continued to bring languages into contact with one another, and US educational scholars and, sometimes, institutions have made progress in considering what it means for individuals to be adding new written languages to existing ones. Even as these expansions have enlarged the experience of writing outside school, implementation of the first USA nationwide standards in literacy--the Common Core State Standards--has, in some places, contributed to narrowing students' experience of writing inside school. In that contradictory and shifting environment, the NCTE Executive Committee charged a committee to update the "Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing," attempting to reflect some of the historically significant changes of recent years. This position statement presents some of the professional principles that guide effective teaching.

Writing, reading, language learning, and related literate activities are at the core of NCTE's mission. For decades the organization and its members have investigated and acted on questions about how students should learn, how that learning should be assessed, and what conditions should exist to support learning from pre-kindergarten through college and beyond. Recent initiatives such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), as well as institutional, state, and local policies, have opened the possibility of innovative approaches to learning, assessment, and teacher support. These initiatives create opportunities to enact NCTE's core commitments to literacy learning across grade levels and subjects. NCTE advocates for: changes to learning and teaching conditions that create inequity for students; advanced learning and teaching conditions that create equity in literacy education; appropriate assessment and accountability systems and for uses of data that are grounded in research and experience; assessment and accountability systems that are used to make principled decisions; and conditions that recognize teacher expertise and foster connections within classes and across grade levels and sites of learning.

On June 19, 2015, the Early Childhood Education Assembly (ECEA) of NCTE posted a statement sending love to the families and the people of Charleston in response to the racist murders at the historic Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The statement also expressed belief that early childhood educators have a clear responsibility and essential role to play in educating tomorrow's adults so that this and other more insidious kinds of racism are no longer a possibility. At that time, they promised to initiate a set of resources on the ECEA website in support of focused anti-racist work in educational settings. With this reiteration of previous statements resources were provided. The intent is to continue building this collection and to work toward collaborations across the country. The link to the statement and previous statement resources is provided in this position statement, along with prior ECEA statements and a statement about the role of early childhood education and racism.