Visit https://ebooknice.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

(Ebook) Literacy in the middle grades by

Tompkins, Gail E ISBN 9781269374507,
9781292041100, 1269374508, 1292041102

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebooknice.com/product/literacy-in-the-middle-
grades-21976882

Explore and download more ebooks at ebooknice.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

(Ebook) Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook by Loucas, Jason; Viles, James

ISBN 9781459699816, 9781743365571, 9781925268492, 1459699815,
1743365578, 1925268497

https://ebooknice.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-6661374

(Ebook) Matematik 5000+ Kurs 2c Lärobok by Lena Alfredsson, Hans

Heikne, Sanna Bodemyr ISBN 9789127456600, 9127456609

https://ebooknice.com/product/matematik-5000-kurs-2c-larobok-23848312

(Ebook) SAT II Success MATH 1C and 2C 2002 (Peterson's SAT II Success)

by Peterson's ISBN 9780768906677, 0768906679

https://ebooknice.com/product/sat-ii-success-
math-1c-and-2c-2002-peterson-s-sat-ii-success-1722018

(Ebook) Master SAT II Math 1c and 2c 4th ed (Arco Master the SAT
Subject Test: Math Levels 1 & 2) by Arco ISBN 9780768923049,
0768923042

https://ebooknice.com/product/master-sat-ii-math-1c-and-2c-4th-ed-
arco-master-the-sat-subject-test-math-levels-1-2-2326094
(Ebook) Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth Study:
the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition by Benjamin Harrison ISBN
9781398375147, 9781398375048, 1398375144, 1398375047

https://ebooknice.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-history-
workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-edition-53538044

(Ebook) Literacy for the 21st Century by Gail E. Tompkins

https://ebooknice.com/product/literacy-for-the-21st-century-35191454

(Ebook) Literacy in the Early Grades: A Successful Start for PreK-4

Readers and Writers by Tompkins, Gail, Rodgers, Emily ISBN
9780134990569, 0134990560

https://ebooknice.com/product/literacy-in-the-early-grades-a-
successful-start-for-prek-4-readers-and-writers-26934710

(Ebook) Literacy in the Early Grades: A Successful Start for PreK-4

Readers and Writers, Enhanced Pearson eText with Loose-Leaf Version --
Access Card Package (4th Edition) by Gail E. Tompkins and Emily
Rodgers ISBN 9780133831467, 0133831469
https://ebooknice.com/product/literacy-in-the-early-grades-a-
successful-start-for-prek-4-readers-and-writers-enhanced-pearson-
etext-with-loose-leaf-version-access-card-package-4th-edition-33319096

(Ebook) Teaching secondary and middle school mathematics by Brahier,

Daniel J ISBN 9781269374507, 9781292042060, 1269374508, 1292042060

https://ebooknice.com/product/teaching-secondary-and-middle-school-
mathematics-22019952
Literacy in the middle grades Second Edition, New
International Edition Tompkins Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Tompkins, Gail E
ISBN(s): 9781292041100, 1292041102
Edition: Second edition, New International edition
File Details: PDF, 10.40 MB
Year: 2013
Language: english
 Literacy in the Middle Grades
Tompkins
Literacy in the Middle Grades
Gail E. Tompkins
Second Edition

Second Edition

ISBN 978-1-29204-110-0

9 781292 041100
Pearson New International Edition

Literacy in the Middle Grades

Gail E. Tompkins
Second Edition
Pearson Education Limited
Edinburgh Gate
Harlow
Essex CM20 2JE
England and Associated Companies throughout the world

Visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.pearsoned.co.uk

© Pearson Education Limited 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without either the
prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom
issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.

All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. The use of any trademark
in this text does not vest in the author or publisher any trademark ownership rights in such
trademarks, nor does the use of such trademarks imply any affiliation with or endorsement of this
book by such owners.

ISBN 10: 1-292-04110-2

ISBN 10: 1-269-37450-8
ISBN 13: 978-1-292-04110-0
ISBN 13: 978-1-269-37450-7

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Printed in the United States of America

 P E A R S O N C U S T O M L I B R A R Y

Table of Contents

1. Assessing Literacy Learning

Gail E. Tompkins 1
2. Differentiating Instruction
Gail E. Tompkins 31
3. Eliminating Obstacles to Fluency
Gail E. Tompkins 57
4. Expanding Academic Vocabulary
Gail E. Tompkins 87
5. Promoting Comprehension: Reader Factors
Gail E. Tompkins 115
6. Promoting Comprehension: Text Factors
Gail E. Tompkins 143
7. Teaching Writing
Gail E. Tompkins 171
8. Teaching With Trade Books
Gail E. Tompkins 201
9. Teaching With Textbooks
Gail E. Tompkins 231
10. Using Literacy in the Content Areas
Gail E. Tompkins 253
11. Credits
Gail E. Tompkins 285
References
Gail E. Tompkins 287
Glossary
Gail E. Tompkins 305

I
 Index 309

II
 CHAPTER 3

Assessing Literacy
Learning

rs. Sarkissian is a seventh-grade

“core” (combined language arts/
social studies) teacher whose
students are reading 2 or more
years below grade level and who scored “far
below basic” on last year’s statewide stan-
dards-based achievement test. The class is
capped at 20 students, but currently there are
23 in the class because of overcrowding. She
asks Mrs. Jackson, the school’s literacy coach,
to assess Raquel, a well-behaved 13-year-old
who participates actively in class but isn’t
making adequate progress.
Mrs. Jackson begins by visiting Mrs.
Sarkissian’s classroom to observe Raquel.
First the students do Daily Language Prac-
tice, a 10-minute editing activity to reinforce
capitalization, punctuation, and grammar
skills. Students read a passage that’s projected
onto a whiteboard to locate and the correct
the errors in it. Mrs. Jackson observes
Teachers Diagnose a Struggling Student Raquel’s group as they hunt for errors.
Raquel quickly catches the capitalization er-
rors but doesn’t notice the punctuation errors
involving quotation marks and commas. Everyone in the group struggles with the gram-
mar, so Mrs. Jackson helps them identify verb, pronoun, and sentence fragment errors.
Next, students participate in integrated literacy/social studies activities. The class
is currently involved in a monthlong unit on the Renaissance, and they’re reading
Shakespeare’s Secret (Broach, 2007), a mystery about a lost diamond that may have be-
longed to Anne Boleyn. The book’s reading level is sixth grade, too difficult for stu-
dents to read on their own, so Mrs. Sarkissian does shared reading. She focuses on
drawing inferences as she reads because her students have difficulty with inferential

From Chapter 3 of Literacy in the Middle Grades: Teaching Reading and Writing to Fourth Through
Eighth Grades, 2/e. Gail E. Tompkins. Copyright © 2010 by Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
1
 thinking. Raquel follows along as her teacher reads, and she participates in the discus-
sion even though most of her comments indicate that she doesn’t comprehend the book.
Writing workshop is next. Mrs. Sarkissian has taught students about persuasive writ-
ing, and they’ve read and analyzed sample essays before writing one together as a class.
Now they’re writing persuasive essays on topics they’ve chosen themselves. Raquel and
her friend Etta’s topic is “breakfast is the most important meal of the day”; it was Etta’s
idea, and she’s more passionate about the topic than Raquel is. Today they’re partici-
pating in a writing group to revise their rough draft. They share their draft and get ad-
vice about how to add a counterargument, and a classmate encourages to them to make
sure every sentence makes sense.
During the last 15 minutes of class, students read independently in books at their
reading level while Mrs. Sarkissian circulates around the classroom, listening to stu-
dents read aloud and talking quietly with them about their reading. Raquel is reading
P.S. I Really Like You (Krulik, 2008), the sixth book in the How I Survived Middle School
series about Jenny and her girlfriends at Joyce Kilmer Middle School. Mrs. Jackson
squats down beside Raquel and listens to her read aloud in this third-grade-level book.
Raquel’s reading is fairly fluent, but not very expressive. Mrs. Jackson asks, “So, who
do you think Jenny’s secret admirer is?” but Raquel doesn’t have any ideas.
After the observation, Mrs. Jackson checks Raquel’s permanent record to learn more
about her: Raquel is Hispanic, her primary language is Spanish, and her English Lan-
guage Development level is 3 (of 5 levels); her limited reading achievement keeps her
from advancing to the next level. She’s attended six schools since kindergarten. She was
in a Spanish language program in the primary grades and transitioned to English in
fourth grade. Her mother speaks only Spanish and didn’t graduate from high school.
There’s no information about Raquel’s father except that he’s not living in the home.
Raquel attends school regularly. Her GPA for the first quarter of seventh grade is
3.3, and she received As in both language arts and social studies. Her report cards for
kindergarten through third grade indicate that she wasn’t making adequate progress in
reading and writing, and each year her teachers requested that Raquel’s mother assist
by reading and writing with her. Notes on her third-grade report card show that she
was reading at first-grade level. In fifth grade, she read at second-grade level, and in
sixth grade, she read at third-grade level. She began taking standardized achievement
tests in third grade and has consistently ranked at the lowest proficiency level, “far
below basic,” in reading.
Mrs. Jackson decides to use these three assessments to learn more about Raquel
and diagnose her literacy problems:

• Interest inventories to learn about Raquel and her perception of herself as a reader
and writer
• An informal reading inventory to determine Raquel’s reading level and examine her
ability to identify words, read fluently, understand academic vocabulary, and an-
swer comprehension questions
• Pieces of writing to investigate Raquel’s ability to use the writing process, the six
traits, and conventions (spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar)

Mrs. Jackson already suspects that Raquel reads at the third-grade level and has com-
prehension problems that may be related to being an English learner.

The Interest Inventories. Mrs. Jackson asked Raquel questions about her home life, in-
terests, and reading and writing achievement. Raquel is a Hispanic seventh grader who’s
tall for her age and has long, curly, dark hair. She seems confident and outgoing during
57

2
58 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

the interview. She’s adamant that she’s a native English speaker, even though her school
records indicate otherwise. She has four siblings, one sister and three brothers who are all
older, and she emphasizes that everyone in her family speaks English. She’s interested in
becoming a fashion designer because her aunt taught her how to draw clothing and she
likes to watch Project Runway on TV. She joined the drama club this year because she
likes Mrs. Sarkissian, who sponsors it, and now she’s thinking of becoming an actor.
Raquel explained that she tries hard because she wants to be a good student. She
does homework at the kitchen table, but her siblings often distract her so she doesn’t
get it completed. Her family has a computer with Internet access, and she loves to play
online games—her favorite website is Multiplication.com (www.multiplication.com).
She doesn’t have any books, but she regularly reads Tiger Beat, a teenagers’ magazine
about music and celebrities.
Raquel described herself as a good reader, but she doesn’t use reading strategies.
She said she’s good at learning new words because she knows how to break them into
syllables. Raquel admitted that she doesn’t do much reading and couldn’t think of a book
she’d read recently. She likes to write but acknowledged that she’s not a good writer.
She stated that writing paragraphs is the hardest part for her. She couldn’t recall any
writing she’d done lately.

Informal Reading Inventory. Mrs. Jackson used the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4
(QRI) (Leslie & Caldwell, 2006), an informal reading inventory, to assess Raquel’s read-
ing performance. In particular, she wanted to determine Raquel’s reading level, check
the adequacy of her background knowledge, examine her oral reading fluency, and di-
agnose comprehension problems.
She began by asking Raquel to read graded word lists, beginning at first-grade level,
to examine her ability to identify words and determine the starting point for the sec-
ond part of the test, reading graded passages. As Raquel read the words, Mrs. Jackson
marked a scoring sheet and at the end of each list, counted the errors to identify the
reading level. Raquel read the first- through fifth-grade lists with these results:

First grade: independent reading level

Second grade: independent reading level
Third grade: independent reading level
Fourth grade: instructional reading level
Fifth grade: frustration reading level

Mrs. Jackson will begin the second part of the QRI at third grade because it’s Raquel’s
highest independent word-reading level.
Mrs. Jackson noticed that Raquel made two types of word-identification errors. For
one- and two-syllable words, she quickly substituted real words with the same begin-
ning and ending sounds: lock for look, plot for pilot, frame for fame, invited for invented, sil-
very for slavery, and punch for pouch. She also tried without success to sound out these
words: environment, adaptation, guarded, irrigated, bulletin, adventurer, pioneers, and curious.
To examine her vocabulary knowledge, Mrs. Jackson pronounced some of the words that
Raquel missed and asked her if she’d heard them before, but she didn’t recognize any.
Next, Mrs. Jackson asked Raquel to read some passages aloud. Before she read each
one, Mrs. Jackson asked several questions to investigate her background knowledge
about the topic of the passage, and after the reading, she asked Raquel to retell what
she’d read and answer some comprehension questions. Raquel first read a third-grade

3
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 59

narrative passage about a field trip to the zoo; she read it smoothly, retold it accurately,
and answered all questions correctly. Mrs. Jackson scored it as independent level. Next,
Raquel read a third-grade expository passage on cats, but her retelling was incomplete,
and she didn’t answer any implicit comprehension questions correctly; Mrs. Jackson
scored it as instructional level. Last, Raquel easily read a second-grade expository pas-
sage on whales, and Mrs. Jackson scored it as independent level.
The testing continued until Mrs. Jackson identified Raquel’s independent, instruc-
tional, and frustration levels for narrative and expository texts; the results are presented
in the box below. As passages became more difficult, Raquel demonstrated more strength
in word identification than in comprehension. Her answers to before-reading questions
indicated that she lacked adequate background knowledge about the topics, her
retellings were increasingly incomplete and confused, and her answers to explicit com-
prehension questions were better than to implicit ones.

Raquel’s QRI Results

Reading Level Narrative Texts Expository Texts
Independent 3 2

Instructional 4 3

Frustration 5 4

Listening Capacity 6 5

Mrs. Jackson also tested Raquel’s listening capacity level to determine whether she
could understand orally presented information and books when they’re read aloud; she
calls listening capacity her “comprehension potential.” Raquel’s listening capacity score
for narrative texts is sixth grade, and fifth grade for expository texts. Seventh-grade pas-
sages are too difficult for her to comprehend successfully.
Mrs. Jackson concluded that Raquel reads at the third–fourth grade level, depend-
ing on the topic and genre, and she comprehends sixth-grade-level fiction texts and fifth-
grade-level content-area textbooks when they’re read aloud. The teacher noted
problems in these areas:
Word Identification. Raquel’s word identification is stronger than her comprehen-
sion; nonetheless, she exhibited difficulty identifying words, including settlers,
guarded, lodge, canals, and beasts. The word-identification errors seem to reflect her
limited background knowledge.
Fluency. Raquel’s reading speed averaged 109 words read per minute (wpm), which
exceeds the 100-wpm threshold for fluency but is very slow for seventh grade. She
read word by word and without expressiveness.
Vocabulary. Raquel’s academic vocabulary knowledge is very limited; for example,
she described a beaver as a “thing” and didn’t know the meaning of courage or rec-
ognize the related word courageous.
Comprehension. Raquel has limited background knowledge about topics typically
studied in the elementary grades, including Johnny Appleseed, Abraham Lincoln,
beavers, and whales. She struggled to make predictions even after talking about a
topic and reading the title of the passage. She was unable to draw inferences and

4
60 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

answer implicit comprehension questions in narrative and expository passages. In

addition, she didn’t respond to humor even through Mrs. Jackson laughed as Raquel
read a funny passage aloud.
Oral Language. Raquel’s speech reflects her status as an English learner. She con-
fuses pronouns (he/she/they), and her sentence structure is often awkward. For ex-
ample, as she retold the passage about Johnny Appleseed, Raquel said, “He was
grateful from everyone because he planted them” when she was talking about the
apple seeds people gave him.
Raquel exhibited problems in all areas, but comprehension presents her greatest challenge.

Writing Sample. Mrs. Sarkissian didn’t have a collection of Raquel’s writings to share
with Mrs. Jackson, so she reviewed Raquel’s composition from the last district quar-
terly writing assessment. It’s a response to literature, written after listening to a short
story read aloud, and it received the lowest rating:
In the story was a boy name was Jerry and he lie a lost [lot] to he friend. He lie
that he will buy some glab [gloves]. Then he want home and he said to he self
were [where] will I get the glab. Then he lie to her mother that he will get the
glub.
Then after time past he said why do you care [carry] milk into the fost [forest].
Then a gril said my fish [fingers] are red. I need glab. Then the gril said last time
said you buy a glab and verybody [everybody] said ooo yes. yes. Then they say were
are your glab. Then he said at home in my clother [closet]. And they said bring we
can us them. And then he said no. no.
Fanily the boy tell the true that he not have glub because he lie. Then he friend
said I want [won’t] be your friend because lie to us that you got glab. Then he said I
lie to my mom. And they say that it sad because not to lie to your mom.
Students were instructed to write an essay, developing their interpretation of the story,
and to support their ideas with evidence from the text. Raquel’s composition is typical
of middle-grade struggling writers. She wrote a three-paragraph summary, not an in-
terpretation. Her writing is difficult to read and understand because of serious errors
in spelling, sentence construction, and use of pronouns.

Recommendations. After she completed the testing, Mrs. Jackson reviewed the data
she collected. She concluded that Raquel’s literacy problems affect her potential to meet
grade-level standards. Her instructional reading level is 3–4 years below grade level,
and her listening capacity is 1–2 years below grade level. Comprehension is her most
serious problem area; she has limited background knowledge and academic vocabulary,
she’s unfamiliar with comprehension strategies, and she rarely thinks inferentially. Here
are Mrs. Jackson’s recommendations, beginning with the most important ones:
Comprehension. Increasing Raquel’s comprehension is the top priority. First, she
needs to learn and apply comprehension strategies, including predicting, connect-
ing, monitoring, and repairing. Small-group guided reading lessons are a good way
to teach comprehension strategies. Second, Mrs. Sarkissian should continue to
focus on inferential thinking during read-alouds.
Reading and Writing Practice. Raquel needs to increase reading and writing
volume. The 15-minute daily independent reading time is beneficial so Raquel can
continue to read books at her independent reading level. She needs more writing prac-
tice, including writing about social studies topics in quickwrites and learning logs.

5
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 61

Vocabulary. Mrs. Sarkissian should emphasize academic vocabulary by posting a

word wall in the classroom and involving students in more vocabulary activities,
including word sorts, exclusion brainstorming, and semantic feature analysis.
Word Identification. Raquel should be taught to examine letter sequences in an
entire word, not just make a guess based on the first and last letters. Classroom in-
struction on root words and affixes would also expand her vocabulary knowledge
and provide a useful tool for identifying words.
She shares information about Raquel’s independent, instructional, and frustration lev-
els and these four recommendations with Mrs. Sarkissian. They talk about ways to im-
plement the recommendations, and the conflict between addressing seventh-grade
standards and providing more time for reading and writing practice. Mrs. Jackson agrees
to come into the classroom to work with Mrs. Sarkissian as she begins guided reading
groups, posts a word wall, and makes other changes to support Raquel and the other
struggling readers and writers in her classroom.

ssessment has become a priority in 21st-century schools. School districts and

state and federal education agencies have increased their demands for account-
ability, and today, most students take annual high-stakes tests to judge their
achievement. Teachers are collecting more assessment data now and doing it
more frequently than in the past. They’re using the information to make instructional
decisions, as Mrs. Jackson demonstrated in the vignette. Researchers explain that “a sys-
tem of frequent assessment, coupled with strong content standards and effective reading
instruction, helps ensure that teachers’ . . . approaches are appropriate to each student’s
needs” (Kame’enui, Simmons, & Cornachione, 2000, p. 10). By linking assessment and
instruction, teachers improve students’ learning and their teaching.
As you continue reading, you’ll notice that the term assessment is used much more
often than evaluation. These terms are often considered interchangeable, but they’re
not. Assessment is formative; it’s ongoing and provides immediate feedback to improve
teaching and learning. It’s usually authentic, based on the literacy activities in which
students are engaged. Observations, conferences, and student work samples are exam-
ples of authentic assessment. In contrast, evaluation is summative; it’s final, generally
administered at the end of a unit or a school year, and used to judge quality. Tests are
the most common type of evaluation, and they’re used to compare one student’s achieve-
ment against that of other students or against grade-level standards.

Classroom-Based Assessment
he purpose of classroom assessment is to collect meaningful information about
what students know and do, and it takes many forms (Afflerbach, 2007a).
Teachers use these four types of assessment to monitor and examine students’ learning:

• Kits of leveled books and tests to determine students’ reading levels

• Informal procedures, such as observations and conferences, to monitor student
progress
• Tests to diagnose students’ strengths and weaknesses in specific components of read-
ing and writing
• Collections of work samples to document students’ achievement

6
62 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Each type of assessment serves a different purpose, so it’s important that teachers choose
assessment tools carefully. Researchers recommend that teachers use a combination of
informal and formal assessments to improve the fairness and effectiveness of classroom
literacy assessment (Kuhs, Johnson, Agruso, & Monrad, 2001).

Determining Reading Levels

Teachers match students with books at appropriate levels of difficulty because students
are more likely to be successful when they’re reading books that aren’t too easy or too
difficult; books that are too easy don’t provide enough challenge, and those that are too
difficult frustrate students. Researchers have identified three reading levels that take
into account students’ ability to recognize words automatically, read fluently, and com-
prehend what they’re reading:
Independent Reading Level. Students read books at this level comfortably, on
their own. They recognize almost all words; their accuracy rate is 95–100%.
Their reading is fluent, and they comprehend what they’re reading. Books at
this level are only slightly easier than those at their instructional level, and they
still engage students’ interest.

STRUGGLING Instructional Reading Level. Students

READERS AND WRITERS read and understand books at this level
with support, but not on their own.
They recognize most words; their accu-
“Just Right” Books racy rate is 90–94%. Their reading may
be fluent, but sometimes it isn’t. With
Struggling readers need books they can read. support from the teacher or classmates,
Researchers emphasize that struggling readers need to do more read- students comprehend what they’re
ing, but too often, they pick up the same books their classmates are read- reading, but if they’re reading inde-
ing, and these books are too difficult (Allington, 2006). What students pendently, their understanding is lim-
need are “just right” books that they can read fluently and comprehend. ited. This level reflects Vygotsky’s zone
When students read engaging books at their independent reading level, of proximal development, discussed in
they’ll be successful, and it’s more likely that they’ll continue to read. Chapter 1.
Middle graders need to know how to choose “just right” books for
Frustration Reading Level. Books at
independent reading. The “three-finger rule” is a quick way for students
this level are too difficult for students to
to determine whether a book is a good match for them: Students turn
read successfully, even with assistance.
to any page in a book and as they read it, they raise a finger whenever
Students don’t recognize enough words
they encounter an unfamiliar word. If they know every word, the book’s
automatically; their accuracy is less
too easy, but if there’s one or two new words on a page, the book is
than 90%. Students’ reading is choppy
probably an appropriate choice. If there are three or more difficult words
and word by word, and it often doesn’t
on a page, the book’s too difficult for independent reading.
make sense. In addition, students show
Young adolescents particularly enjoy reading series books, such as
little understanding of what’s been read.
Lemony Snicket and Harry Potter, but these books are written at sixth-
through ninth-grade reading levels, well beyond the reach of struggling
readers. Luckily, many popular series available today are written at Students should be assessed regularly to
second- through fifth-grade reading levels, including A–Z Mysteries, determine their reading levels and to
Hank the Cowdog, Time Warp Trio, and Secrets of Droon. These books monitor their progress.
are “just right” for struggling readers. It’s essential that teachers have These reading levels have important
books in these popular series in their classroom libraries so struggling implications for instruction: Students read
readers have engaging “just right” books to read. independent-level books when they’re
reading for pleasure and instructional-
level books when they’re participating in

7
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 63

guided reading or another scaffolded lesson. They shouldn’t be expected to read books
Check the Compendium of
at their frustration level; when it’s essential that struggling students experience grade-
Instructional Procedures,
appropriate literature or learn content-area information, teachers should read the text
which follows Chapter 12,
aloud to them. for more information on the
highlighted terms.
Readability Formulas. For nearly a century, readability formulas have been used to
estimate the ease with which reading materials, both trade books and textbooks, can be
read. Readability scores serve as rough gauges of text difficulty and are traditionally
reported as grade-level scores. If a book has a readability score of fifth grade, for
example, teachers assume that average fifth graders will be able to read it. Sometimes
readability scores are marked on books, with RL for reading level and a grade level, such
as RL 5.
Readability scores are determined by correlating semantic and syntactic features
in a text. Several passages from a text are identified for analysis, and then vocabu-
lary sophistication is measured by counting the number of syllables in each word,
and sentence complexity by the number of words in each sentence. The syllable and
word counts from each passage are averaged, and the readability score is calculated
by plotting the averages on a graph. It seems reasonable to expect that texts with
shorter words and sentences would be easier to read than others with longer words
and sentences. Readability formulas, however, take into account only two text fac-
tors; they can’t account for reader factors, including the experience and knowledge
that readers bring to reading, their cognitive and linguistic backgrounds, or their
motivation for reading.
One fairly quick and simple readability formula is the Fry Readability Graph,
developed by Edward Fry (1968); it’s presented in the Assessment Tools feature on
page 64. This graph is used to predict the grade-level score for texts, ranging from
first grade through college level. Teachers use a readability formula as an aid in eval-
uating textbook and trade-book selections for classroom use; however, they can’t as-
sume that materials rated as appropriate for a particular level will be appropriate for
all students because students’ achievement within a class typically varies three grade
levels or more.
Just looking at a book isn’t enough to determine its readability, because books that
seem quite different sometimes score at the same level. For example, these five books
are rated at the sixth-grade level:

Every Living Thing (Rylant, 1988), a collection of short stories about people whose
lives are altered by their interactions with animals

The Cay (Taylor, 2003), an award-winning novel about prejudice, love, and survival

Nightmares: Poems to Trouble Your Sleep (Prelutsky, 1993), a collection of spooky po-
ems by a prolific poet

Rosie the Riveter: Women Working on the Home Front During World War II (Colman,
1998), a nonfiction book about the millions of women who served in the wartime
labor force

Under the Royal Palms: A Childhood in Cuba (Ada, 1998), an autobiography by

author Alma Flor Ada

You may be surprised that these books are all rated at the sixth-grade level because their
topics, genres, and page lengths differ significantly.

8
64 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Assessment Tools
The Fry Readability Graph

Average Number of Syllables Per 100 Words

108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 148 152 156 160 164 168 172 176 180 182
25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
16.7 1 16.7
14.3 14.3
12.5 12.5
11.1 11.1
10.0 2 10.0
Average Number of Sentences Per 100 Words

9.1 9.1
8.3 3 8.3
7.7 7.7
7.1 7.1
6.7
4 6.7
6.3 5 6.3
5.9 5.9
5.6 6 5.6
5.2 5.2
5.0 5.0
4.8 4.8
4.5 7 4.5
4.3 4.3
4.2 PP 4.2
A

4.0 RO 8 4.0
XI
3.8 M 3.8
AT
3.7 E 9 3.7
GR
3.6 AD 3.6
E 10
3.5
LEV 11 3.5
3.3 E 12 3.3
L 13 14
3.0 15 16 3.0
2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0
108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 148 152 156 160 164 168 172 176 180 182

DIRECTIONS:
1. Select three 100-word passages from the book or other reading material.
2. Count the number of syllables in each 100-word passage and average them.
3. Count the number of sentences in each 100-word passage and average them.
4. Plot the averages on the graph to determine the difficulty level. If the score falls outside the lined area, it isn’t valid.

From “A Readability Formula That Saves Time,” by E. Fry, 1968, p. 587.

Leveled Books. Basal readers have traditionally been leveled according to grade
levels, but grade-level designations, especially in kindergarten and first grade, are
too broad. Fountas and Pinnell (2006b) developed a text gradient, or classification
system that arranges books along a continuum from easiest to hardest, to match

9
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 65

students to books in grades K–8. Their system is based on these 10 variables that
influence reading difficulty:
• Genre and format of the book
• Organization and use of text structures
• Familiarity with and interest in the topic
• Complexity of ideas and themes
• Language and literary features
• Sentence length and complexity
• Sophistication of the vocabulary
• Word length and ease of decoding
• Relationship of illustrations to the text
• Length of the book, its layout, and other print features
Fountas and Pinnell used these criteria to identify 26 levels, labeled A through Z,
for their text gradient, which teachers can use to level books in their classrooms.
More than 18,000 books have been leveled according to this text gradient. A sam-
ple trade book for each level is shown in Figure 3–1; other leveled books are listed
in The Fountas and Pinnell Leveled Book List, K–8 (Fountas & Pinnell, 2006a) and on-
line at www.fountasandpinnellleveledbooks.com.

FIGURE 3–1 N Books Leveled Using Fountas and Pinnell’s Text Gradient
Level Grade Book
A K Burningham, J. (1985). Colors. New York: Crown.
B K–1 Carle, E. (1997). Have you seen my cat? New York: Aladdin Books.
C K–1 Martin, B., Jr. (2008). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? New York: Henry Holt.
D 1 Peek, M. (2006). Mary wore her red dress. New York: Clarion Books.
E 1 Hill, E. (2005). Where’s Spot? New York: Putnam.
F 1 Hutchins, P. (2005). Rosie’s walk. New York: Aladdin Books.
G 1 Shaw, N. (2006). Sheep in a jeep. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
H 1–2 Kraus, R. (2005). Whose mouse are you? New York: Aladdin Books.
I 1–2 Wood, A. (2005). The napping house. San Diego: Harcourt.
J 2 Rylant, C. (1996). Henry and Mudge and the bedtime thumps. New York: Simon & Schuster.
K 2 Heller, R. (1999). Chickens aren’t the only ones. New York: Putnam.
L 2–3 Marshall, J. (2000). The three little pigs. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
M 2–3 Park, B. (2007). Junie B. Jones and the stupid smelly bus. New York: Random House.
N 3 Danziger, P. (2006). Amber Brown is not a crayon. New York: Puffin Books.
O 3–4 Cleary, B. (1992). Ramona Quimby, age 8. New York: HarperTrophy.
P 3–4 Mathis, S. B. (2006). The hundred penny box. New York: Puffin Books.
Q 4 Howe, D., & Howe, J. (2006). Bunnicula: A rabbit-tale of mystery. New York: Aladdin Books.
R 4 Paulsen, G. (2007). Hatchet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
S 4–5 Norton, M. (2003). The borrowers. San Diego: Odyssey Classics.
T 4–5 Curtis, C. P. (2004). Bud, not Buddy. New York: Laurel Leaf.
U 5 Lowry, L. (1998). Number the stars. New York: Yearling.
V 5–6 Sachar, L. (2008). Holes. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
W 5–6 Choi, S. N. (1993). Year of impossible goodbyes. New York: Yearling.
X 6–8 Hesse, K. (1999). Out of the dust. New York: Scholastic.
Y 6–8 Lowry, L. (2006). The giver. New York: Delacorte.
Z 7–8 Hinton, S. E. (2006). The outsiders. New York: Puffin Books.

Fountas & Pinnell, 2006a.

10
66 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

FIGURE 3–2 N Books Ranked According to the Lexile Framework

Level Grade Book
100–149 K Willems, M. (2003). Don’t let the pigeon drive the bus! New York: Hyperion Books.
150–199 K–1 Marshall, E. (1999). Fox all week. New York: Puffin Books.
200–249 1 Bridwell, N. (2002). Clifford the big red dog. New York: Scholastic.
250–299 1 Kellogg, S. (2002). Pinkerton, behave! New York: Dial Books.
300–349 1–2 Allard, H. (1985). Miss Nelson is missing! Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
350–399 2 Bourgeois, P. (1997). Franklin’s bad day. New York: Scholastic.
400–449 2 Coerr, E. (1989). The Josefina story quilt. New York: HarperTrophy.
450–499 2–3 Bunting, E. (1998). Going home. New York: HarperTrophy.
500–549 3 Rathmann, P. (1995). Officer Buckle and Gloria. New York: Putnam.
550–599 3–4 Sobol, D. (2008). Encyclopedia Brown saves the day. New York: Puffin Books.
600–649 3–4 Cole, J. (1994). The magic school bus on the ocean floor. New York: Scholastic.
650–699 4 Lowry, L. (1998). Number the stars. New York: Yearling.
700–749 4 Howe, D., & Howe, J. (2006). Bunnicula: A rabbit-tale of mystery. New York:
Aladdin Books.
750–799 4–5 Creech, S. (2005). Walk two moons. New York: HarperTrophy.
800–849 5 Dahl, R. (2007). Charlie and the chocolate factory. New York: Puffin Books.
850–899 5–6 Naylor, P. (2000). Shiloh. New York: Aladdin Books.
900–949 6–7 Lewis, C. S. (2005). The lion, the witch and the wardrobe. New York: HarperCollins.
950–999 7 O’Dell, S. (2006). The black pearl. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1000–1049 8 Philbrick, R. (2001). Freak the mighty. New York: Scholastic.
1050–1099 9–10 Tolkien, J. R. R. (2007). The hobbit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1100–1149 10–11 Freedman, R. (2006). Freedom walkers: The story of the Montgomery bus boycott.
New York: Holiday House.
1150–1199 11–12 Brooks, B. (1995). The moves make the man. New York: HarperTrophy.
1200–1300 12 Alcott, L. M. (2004). Little women. New York: Signet Classics.

The Lexile Framework. The newest approach to matching books to readers is the
Lexile Framework, developed by MetaMetrics. This approach is different because
it’s used to measure both students’ reading levels and the difficulty level of books.
Word familiarity and sentence complexity are the two factors used to determine the
difficulty level of books. Lexile scores range from 100 to 1300, representing kinder-
garten through 12th-grade reading levels. Figure 3–2 presents a list of books ranked
according to the Lexile Framework.
Students’ results on high-stakes tests are often linked to the Lexile Framework.
Standardized achievement tests, including the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Stan-
ford Achievement Test, report test results as Lexile scores, as do a number of stan-
dards-based state reading tests, such as the California English-Language Arts
Standards Test, the North Carolina End-of-Grade Tests, and the Texas Assessment
of Knowledge and Skills. With this information, students, parents, and teachers can
match students to books by searching the online Lexile database to locate books at
each student’s reading level.
The Lexile Framework is a promising program, because the wide range of scores
allows teachers to more closely match students and books. The availability of the

11
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 67

online database listing more than 44,000 leveled book titles that students, parents,
and teachers can access makes it a very useful assessment tool; however, matching
students to books is more complicated than determining a numerical score!
The Assessment Tools feature below describes three tests that teachers use to
determine students’ reading levels. These screening instruments use leveled texts that
students read.

Assessment Tools
Determining Students’ Reading Levels
Teachers use these screening instruments to determine students’ instructional read-
ing levels, monitor their progress, and document their achievement through a school
year and across grade levels:

N Developmental Reading Assessment (2nd ed.) (DRA2) (Beaver & Carter, 2005)
The DRA2 kit for grades 4–8 assesses students’ reading performance using leveled
fiction and nonfiction books. The leveled books range from second- to eighth-grade
reading levels. Teachers use an online system to manage students’ scores and group
students for instruction. A handheld version of the DRA2 is also available.

N Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (Fountas & Pinnell, 2007)
The Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System kit for grades 3–8 contains
30 leveled fiction and nonfiction books written specifically for the kit and CDs with
assessment forms to manage students’ scores. Teachers use the books in the kit to
match students’ reading levels to the Fountas and Pinnell 26-level text gradient.

For both of these assessments, teachers test students individually. The teacher se-
lects an appropriate book for the student to read and introduces it; the student reads
the book while the teacher takes a running record. Then the student retells the text
and answers comprehension questions. The teacher scores and analyzes the results,
and testing continues until the teacher determines the student’s instructional level.

N Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI)

The SRI is a unique computer-adaptive assessment program that reports stu-
dents’ reading levels using Lexile scores. Students take a 20-minute computer-
ized test individually. The student reads a narrative or informational passage on
the computer screen and answers multiple-choice comprehension questions.
This test is computer-adaptive because if the student answers a question cor-
rectly, the next one will be more difficult, and if the answer is wrong, the next
one will be easier. Students read passages and answer questions until their read-
ing level is determined. Afterward, students receive a customized take-home
letter with their Lexile score and a personalized list of recommended books.

These assessments are usually administered at the beginning of the school year
and periodically during the year to monitor students’ progress. The results are
also used to group students for guided reading and to identify students who
need diagnostic testing.

12
68 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Monitoring Progress
Monitoring is vital to student success (Braunger & Lewis, 2006). Teachers supervise
students’ learning every day and use the results to make instructional decisions
(Winograd & Arrington, 1999). As they monitor students’ progress, teachers learn
about their students, about themselves as teachers, and about the impact of their in-
structional program. Teachers use a variety of informal, formative procedures to
monitor students’ progress.

Observations. Effective teachers are kid watchers, a term Yetta Goodman (1978) coined
to describe the “direct and informal observation of students” (p. 37). The focus is on
what students do as they read or write, not on whether they’re behaving properly or
working quietly. Of course, little learning can occur in disruptive situations, but dur-
ing these observations, the focus is on literacy, not behavior. Observations should be
planned. Teachers usually observe specific students each day so that over the course of
a week, they watch everyone in the class.

Anecdotal Notes. Teachers write brief notes in notebooks or on self-stick notes as they
observe students (Boyd-Batstone, 2004). The most useful notes describe specific events,
report rather than evaluate, and relate the events to other information about the stu-
dent. Teachers make notes about students’ reading and writing activities, the questions
students ask, and the strategies and skills they use fluently and those they don’t under-
stand. These records monitor and document students’ growth and pinpoint problem
areas to address in future minilessons or conferences. A teacher’s anecdotal notes about
sixth-grade students participating in a literature circle on Bunnicula: A Rabbit-Tale of
Mystery (Howe & Howe, 2006) appear in Figure 3–3.

Conferences. Teachers talk with students to monitor their progress in reading and writ-
ing activities as well as to set goals and help them solve problems. Here are six types of
conferences that teachers have with students:

On-the-Spot Conferences. The teacher visits with students at their desks to mon-
itor some aspect of the students’ work or to check on progress. These confer-
ences are brief, with the teacher often spending less than a minute with each
student.

Planning Conferences. The teacher and the student make plans for reading or writ-
ing at the conference. At a prereading conference, they may talk about informa-
tion or difficult concepts related to the book, or about the reading log the student
will keep. At a prewriting conference, they may discuss possible writing topics or
how to narrow a broad topic.

Revising Conferences. A small group of students meets with the teacher to share
rough drafts and get specific suggestions about how to revise them.

Book Discussion Conferences. Students meet with the teacher to discuss the book
they’ve read. They may share reading log entries, discuss plot or characters, or com-
pare the story to others they’ve read.
Editing Conferences. The teacher reviews students’ proofread compositions and
helps them correct spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and other mechanical
errors.

13
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 69

FIGURE 3–3 N Anecdotal Notes About a Literature Circle

March 7
Met with the Bunnicula literature circle as they started reading the book. They
have their reading, writing, and discussion schedule set. Sari questioned how a
dog could write the book. We reread the Editor’s Note. She asked if Harold really
wrote the book. She’s the only one confused in the group. Is she always so literal?
Mario pointed out that you have to know that Harold supposedly wrote the book
to understand the first-person viewpoint of the book. Talked to Sari about fantasy.
Told her she’ll be laughing out loud as she reads this book. She doubts it.
March 8
Returned to Bunnicula literature circle for first grand conversation, especially to check
on Sari. Annie, Mario, Ted, Rod, Laurie, and Belinda talked about their pets and
imagined them taking over their homes. Sari is not getting into the book. She doesn’t
have any pets and can’t imagine the pets doing these things. I asked if she wanted to
change groups. Perhaps a realistic book would be better. She says no. Is that because
Ted is in the group?
March 10
The group is reading chapters 4 and 5 today. Laurie asks questions about white
vegetables and vampires. Rod goes to get an encyclopedia to find out about
vampires. Mario asks about DDT. Everyone—even Sari—involved in reading.
March 13
During a grand conversation, students compare the characters Harold and Chester.
The group plans to make a Venn diagram comparing the characters for the sharing on
Friday. Students decide that character is the most important element, but Ted argues
that humor is the most important element in the story. Other students say humor
isn’t an element. I asked what humor is a reaction to—characters or plot? I checked
journals and all are up to date.
March 15
The group has finished reading the book. I share sequels from the class library. Sari
grabs one to read. She’s glad she stayed with the book. Ted wants to write his own
sequel in writing workshop. Mario plans to write a letter to James Howe.
March 17
Ted and Sari talk about Bunnicula and share related books. Rod and Mario share the Venn
diagram of characters. Annie reads her favorite part, and Laurie shows her collection of
rabbits. Belinda hangs back. I wonder if she has been involved. I need to talk to her.

Evaluation Conferences. The teacher meets with students after they’ve completed
an assignment or project to talk about their growth as readers and writers. Students
reflect on their accomplishments and set goals.

Often these conferences are brief and impromptu, held at students’ desks as the teacher
moves around the classroom; at other times, however, the conferences are planned, and
students meet with the teacher at a designated conference table.

Checklists. Checklists simplify assessment and enhance students’ learning (Kuhs,

Johnson, Agruso, & Monrad, 2001). Teachers identify the evaluation criteria in
advance so students understand what’s expected of them before they begin working.
Grading is easier because teachers have already set the evaluation criteria, and it’s fairer,

14
70 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Assessment Tools
Book Talk Checklist
Jaime
Name _____________________________________________ November 12
Date ____________________
Cockroach Cooties
Title __________________________________________________________________________
Laurence Yep
Author ______________________________________________________________________

 Hold up the book to show to classmates.

 State the title and author’s name.
 Interest classmates in the book by asking a question, reading an excerpt,
or sharing some information.
Summarize the book, without giving away the ending.
 Talk loud enough for everyone to hear you.
 Look at the audience.
Limit the book talk to 3 minutes.

too, because teachers use the same criteria to grade all students’ work. The Assessment
Tools feature above shows a fourth-grade checklist for giving book talks. At the be-
ginning of the school year, the teacher introduced book talks, modeled how to do one,
and developed the checklist with the students. Students use the checklist whenever
they’re preparing to give a book talk, and the teacher uses it to evaluate the effective-
ness of their book talks.

Rubrics. Scoring guides called rubrics evaluate student performance in reading and
writing according to specific criteria and levels of achievement (Afflerbach, 2007b).
They’re similar to checklists because they specify what students are expected to be able
to do, but they go beyond checklists because they describe levels of achievement. A 4-
level rubric for assessing sixth graders’ independent reading during reading workshop
is shown in the Assessment Tools feature on the next page. Students complete the rubric
at the end of each quarter. The quality levels, ranging from Outstanding (highest) to
Beginning (lowest), are shown in the column on the far left, and the achievement cat-
egories are listed across the top: number of books read during the quarter, reading level
of the books, genres represented by the books, and students’ interpretations. The
Interpretation category assesses students’ comprehension.

Students’ Work Samples. Teachers have students collect their work in folders to doc-
ument their learning. Work samples might include reading logs, audiotapes of students’
reading, photos of projects, videotapes of puppet shows and oral presentations, and
books students have written. Students often choose some of these work samples to place
in their portfolios.

Diagnosing Strengths and Weaknesses

Teachers use diagnostic reading assessments to identify students’ strengths and weak-
nesses, examine any area of difficulty in more detail, and decide how to modify in-
struction to meet students’ needs. They use a variety of diagnostic tests to examine

15
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 71

students’ achievement in word identification, vocabulary, comprehension, and other

components of reading and writing. The Assessment Tools feature on page 72 lists the
diagnostic tests recommended in this text and directs you to the chapter where you can
learn more about them.
Two of the assessments that teachers commonly use are running records and in-
formal reading inventories. They’re used to determine students’ reading levels as well
as to diagnose difficulties in word identification, vocabulary, and comprehension and
to monitor students’ growth as readers.

Running Records. Teachers take running records to assess students’ oral reading. The
teacher listens as a student reads aloud and makes a series of checkmarks on a sheet of
paper for words that the student reads correctly and other marks to indicate words that
the student substitutes, repeats, mispronounces, or doesn’t know. Although running
records can be taken on a blank sheet of paper, it’s much easier to make a copy of
the page or pages the student will read and take the running record next to or above the
actual text. Using a copy of the text is especially important when assessing older students
who read more-complex texts and who read more quickly than beginning readers do.
Shea (2006) developed a modified procedure for using running records with young
adolescents who are struggling readers. Instead of having students read a complete text
as younger children do, Shea recommends using a 1-minute probe: The student reads
aloud for 1 minute from a text that’s being used in class, and the teacher marks a copy
of the text as the student reads. Afterward, the student retells what he or she has just
read, and the teacher prompts the student about any ideas that aren’t mentioned. Shea
also suggests making an audio- or videotape of the student’s reading and reviewing it
to gain additional insights.

Assessment Tools
Independent Reading Rubric
Level Books Read Difficulty Level Genres Interpretation
Outstanding Finishes 5 or Reads “just right” Reads books Makes insightful
more books. books and tries from 3 or interpretation with
“too hard” books more genres. evidence from the
sometimes. book, author’s style,
and genre.

Proficient Finishes 3 Reads mostly Reads books Shares accurate inter-

or 4 books. “just right” books. from 2 genres. pretation using a
summary, inferences,
and story structure.

Developing Finishes 2 Reads mostly Tries a differ- Provides literal inter-

books. “too easy” ent genre pretation by summa-
books. once in a rizing events and making
while. personal connections.

Beginning Finishes 1 Always reads Sticks with 1 Offers an incomplete

book. “too easy” books. genre. or inaccurate response.

16
72 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Assessment Tools
Diagnostic Reading and Writing Assessments
Component Tests Where to Learn More
Fluency High-frequency word lists Chapter 5, Overcoming
The Names Test Obstacles to Fluency, p. 121
Developmental Reading
Assessment
Fluency checks
Informal reading inventories
Running records
3-Minute Reading Assessments

Comprehension Comprehension Thinking Chapter 7, Promoting

Strategies Assessment Comprehension: Reader
Developmental Reading Factors, p. 194
Assessment
Informal reading inventories
Running records

Motivation Elementary Reading Attitude Chapter 7, Promoting

Survey Comprehension: Reader
Motivation to Read Profile Factors, p. 198
Reader Self-Perception Scale
Writing Attitude Survey
Writer Self-Perception Scale

Writing Rubrics Chapter 9, Teaching Writing,

p. 246

Spelling Developmental Spelling Analysis Chapter 9, Teaching Writing,

Qualitative Spelling Inventory p. 257
Writing samples

Informal Reading Inventories. Teachers use commercial tests called informal reading
inventories (IRIs) to evaluate students’ reading performance. These popular reading tests
are often used as a screening instrument to determine whether students are reading at
grade level, but they’re also a valuable diagnostic tool (Nilsson, 2008). Teachers use IRIs
to identify struggling students’ instructional needs, particularly in the areas of word
identification, oral reading fluency, and comprehension, as Mrs. Jackson did in the
vignette at the beginning of the chapter.
These individualized tests consist of two parts: graded word lists and passages
ranging from first- to at least eighth-grade levels. The word lists contain 10 to 20
words at each level, and students read the words until they become too difficult; this
indicates an approximate level for students to begin reading the passages. Because stu-
dents who can’t read the words on their grade-level list may have a word-identification

17
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 73

problem, teachers analyze the words students read incorrectly, looking for error
patterns.
The graded reading passages include both narrative and expository texts, presented
in order of difficulty. Students read these passages orally or silently and then answer a se-
ries of comprehension questions; some questions ask students to recall specific informa-
tion, some ask them to draw inferences, and others ask for the meaning of vocabulary words.
When students read the passage orally, teachers assess their fluency. Teachers also exam-
ine students’ comprehension. If students can’t answer the questions after reading a pas-
sage, they may have a vocabulary or comprehension problem, and teachers check to see if
there’s a pattern to the types of questions that students miss.
Teachers record students’ performance data on scoring sheets, and calculate
students’ independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels. When students’ read-
ing level is below their grade-level placement, teachers also check their listening capacity;
that is, their ability to understand passages that are read aloud. Knowing whether students
can understand and learn from grade-level texts that are read aloud is crucial because it’s
a common way that teachers support struggling readers.

Teachers assess English learners’ developing language proficiency as well as their progress
in learning to read and write. It’s more challenging to assess ELs than native English
speakers, because when students aren’t proficient in English, their scores don’t accu-
rately reflect what they know (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008). Their cultural and experiential
backgrounds also contribute to making it more difficult to assure that assessment tools
being used aren’t biased.

Oral Language Assessment. Teachers assess students who speak a language other
than English at home to determine their English language proficiency. They typi-
cally use commercial oral language tests to determine if students are proficient in
English. If they’re not, teachers place them in appropriate English language devel-
opment programs and monitor their progress toward English language proficiency.
Two widely used tests are the Language Assessment Scales, published by CTB/Mc-
Graw-Hill, and the IDEA Language Proficiency Test, published by Ballard and
Tighe; both tests assess students’ oral and written language (listening, speaking, read-
ing, and writing) proficiency in English. Individual states have developed language
assessments that are aligned with their English language proficiency standards; for
example, the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test and
the California English Language Development Test.
An authentic assessment tool that many teachers use is the Student Oral
Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM), developed by the San Jose (CA) Area
Bilingual Consortium. It’s not a test per se; rather, the SOLOM is a rating scale that
teachers use to assess students’ command of English as they observe them talking
and listening in real, day-to-day classroom activities. The SOLOM addresses five
components of oral language:

Listening. Teachers score students along a continuum from unable to comprehend

simple statements to understanding everyday conversations.

18
74 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Fluency. Teachers score students along a continuum from halting, fragmentary

speech to fluent speech, approximating that of native speakers.
Vocabulary. Teachers score students along a continuum from extremely limited
word knowledge to using words and idioms skillfully.
Pronunciation. Teachers score students along a continuum from virtually un-
intelligible speech to using pronunciation and intonation proficiently, similar to
native speakers.
Grammar. Teachers score students along a continuum from excessive errors that
make speech unintelligible to applying word order, grammar, and usage rules
effectively.

Each component has a five-point range that’s scored 1 to 5; the total score on the
matrix is 25, and a score of 20 or higher indicates that students are fluent speakers of
English. The SOLOM is available free of charge online at www.cal.org, at other web-
sites, and in many professional books.

Reading Assessment. English learners face two challenges: learning to speak English
at the same time they’re learning to read. They learn to read the same way that native
English speakers do, but they face additional hurdles because their knowledge of
English is limited and their background knowledge is different (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008).
Some English learners are fluent readers in their home language (Garcia, 2000); these
students already have substantial funds of knowledge about how written language works
and about the reading process that they build on as they learn to read in English (Moll,
1994). Having this knowledge gives them a head start, but students also have to learn
what transfers to English reading and what doesn’t.
Teachers use the same assessments that they use for native English speakers to iden-
tify English learners’ reading levels, monitor their growth, and document their learn-
ing. Peregoy and Boyle (2008) recommend using data from running records or informal
reading inventories along with classroom-based informal assessments, such as observ-
ing and conferencing with students.
Because many English learners have less background knowledge about topics in
books they’re reading, it’s important that teachers assess ELs’ background knowl-
edge before instruction so they can modify their teaching to meet students’ needs.
One of the best ways to accomplish this is with a K-W-L chart. As they work with stu-
dents to complete the first two sections of the chart, teachers learn what students
know about a topic and have an opportunity to build additional background knowl-
edge and introduce related vocabulary. Later, when students complete the K-W-L
chart, teachers get a clear picture of what they’ve learned and which vocabulary words
they can use.
Another way teachers learn about ELs’ development is by asking them to assess
themselves as readers (Peregoy & Boyle, 2008). Teachers ask students, for example, what
they do when they come to an unfamiliar word, what differences they’ve noticed
between narrative and expository texts, which reading strategies they use, and what types
of books they prefer. These quick assessments, commonly done during conferences at
the end of a grading period, shed light on students’ growth in a way that other assess-
ments can’t.

Writing Assessment. English learners’ writing develops as their oral language grows
and as they become more-fluent readers (Riches & Genesee, 2006). For beginning

19
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 75

writers, fluency is the first priority: They move from writing strings of familiar words
to grouping words into short sentences that often follow a pattern, much like young
native English speakers do. As they develop some writing fluency, ELs begin to stick
to a single focus, often repeating words and sentences to make their writing longer. Once
they become fluent writers, ELs are usually able to organize their ideas more effectively
and group them into paragraphs. They incorporate more-specific vocabulary and
expand the length and variety of sentences. Their mechanical errors become less seri-
ous, and their writing is much easier to read. At this point, teachers begin teaching the
qualities of good writing and choosing writing strategies and skills to teach based on
the errors that students make.
Peregoy and Boyle (2008) explain that ELs’ writing involves fluency, form, and cor-
rectness, and that teachers’ assessment of students’ writing should reflect these com-
ponents:

Fluency. Teachers monitor students’ ability to write quickly, easily, and comfort-
ably.
Form. Teachers assess students’ ability to apply writing genres, develop their topic,
organize the presentation of ideas, and use sophisticated vocabulary and a variety
of sentence structures.
Correctness. Teachers check that students control Standard English grammar and
usage, spell most words correctly, and use capitalization and punctuation conven-
tions appropriately.

Teachers use rubrics to assess ELs’ writing, and the rubrics address fluency, form, and
correctness as well as the qualities of good writing that teachers have taught. They also
conference with students about their writing and provide quick minilessons, as needed.
To learn about students as writers, teachers observe them as they write, noticing how
they move through the writing process, interact in writing groups, and share their writ-
ing from the author’s chair. In addition, students document writing development by plac-
ing their best writing in portfolios.

Alternative Assessments. Because of the difficulties inherent in assessing English

learners, it’s important to use varied types of assessment that involve different language
and literacy tasks and ways of demonstrating proficiency (Huerta-Macías, 1995). In ad-
dition to commercial tests, O’Malley and Pierce (1996) urge teachers to use authentic
assessment tools, including oral performances, story retellings, oral interviews with stu-
dents, writing samples, illustrations, diagrams, posters, and projects.
Assessment is especially important for students who are learning to speak
English at the same time they’re learning to read and write in English. Teachers use
many of the same assessment tools that they use for their native English speakers but
they also depend on alternative, more-authentic assessments because it’s difficult to ac-
curately measure these students’ growth. Assessment results must be valid because teach-
ers use them to make placement decisions, modify instruction, and document learning.

Documenting Learning
Teachers routinely collect students’ work samples, including cassette tapes of them read-
ing aloud, lists of books they’ve read, reading logs, writing samples with rubrics, and
photos of projects. They also keep students’ test results and the anecdotal notes they

20
76 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

make as they observe students and meet with them in conferences. Teachers use these
data to document students’ progress toward meeting grade-level standards as well as to
evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching. Students also collect their best work in port-
folios to document their own learning and accomplishments.

Portfolio Assessment
ortfolios are systematic and meaningful collections of artifacts documenting
students’ literacy development over a period of time (Hebert, 2001). These
collections are dynamic, and they reflect students’ day-to-day reading and writing activi-
ties as well as content-area activities. Students’ work samples provide “windows” on the
strategies they use as readers and writers. Not only do students select pieces to be placed
in their portfolios, they also learn to establish criteria for their selections. Because of stu-
dents’ involvement in selecting pieces for their portfolios and reflecting on them, portfo-
lio assessment respects students and their abilities. Portfolios help students, teachers, and
parents see patterns of growth from one literacy milestone to another in ways that aren’t
possible with other types of assessment.

New Literacies
that have been posted on the Web for ideas about how to
E-Portfolios organize their students’ collections of work samples.
Instead of collecting writing samples, photos E-portfolios are versatile assessment tools: They accept a
of projects, videotapes of oral presentations, variety of multimodal items, incorporate a hierarchical organi-
and other artifacts in bulky folders that take up lots of zation, and make searching for and retrieving items easy to
space, students can create electronic portfolios, or webfo- do. They’re practical, too, especially if teachers and students
lios, to showcase their best work and document their learn- know how to use computer software and if they’re willing to
ing. They scan their writing samples, photograph their devote the time needed to start up the portfolio system. E-
artifacts with a digital camera, and have classmates video- portfolios are quick and easy for students to access because
tape their oral presentations to add them to their e-portfo- they’re stored on CDs or zip drives or at the school’s website.
lios. In addition, copies of collaborative projects can be The KEEP Toolkit, developed by the Carnegie Foundation
saved in each student’s portfolio. Students add text boxes for the Advancement of Teaching, is an exciting online tool
and video clips to provide context for their samples, reflect for creating portfolios. Its purpose is to provide an econom-
on their learning, and explain how their work demonstrates ical way for teachers and students to design engaging Web-
that they’ve met grade-level standards. They also insert hy- based representations of teaching and learning. The toolkit
perlinks to connect sections and enhance their e-portfolios is used to enter information, upload files, create snapshots,
with music and graphics. and design single webpages or a linked series of webpages.
Teachers create a template that lays out the design, in- A collection of young adolescents’ e-portfolios is displayed
cluding a title, table of contents, and collections of artifacts, in the Gallery of Teaching and Learning section of the
and students use the template to organize their portfolios. Carnegie Foundation’s website (www.cfkeep.org).
Sometimes rubrics are included to show how the artifacts The 21st century has a knowledge-based economy, and
were assessed. Collections from each grade are saved in sep- middle graders who document their learning in e-portfolios
arate files within students’ portfolios. When they’re creating are more likely to continue to use digital tools to showcase
the template, teachers often browse electronic portfolios their knowledge and accomplishments as adults.

21
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 77

Collecting Work in Portfolios

Portfolios are folders, large envelopes, or boxes that hold students’ work. Teachers of-
ten have students label and decorate large folders and then store them in plastic crates
or cardboard boxes. Students date and label items as they place them in their portfo-
lios, and they often attach notes to the items to explain the context for the activity and
why they selected a particular item. Students’ portfolios should be stored in the class-
room in a place where they are readily accessible; students like to review their portfo-
lios periodically and add new pieces to them.
Students usually choose the items to place in their portfolios within the guidelines
the teacher provides. Some students submit the original piece of work; others want to
keep the original, so they place a copy in the portfolio instead. In addition to the read-
ing and writing samples that go directly into portfolios, students can record oral lan-
guage and drama samples on audiotapes, videotapes, and CDs, and digital products on
flash drives to place in their portfolios. Large-size art and writing projects can be pho-
tographed, and the photographs can be placed in the portfolio. Student products might
include books, choral readings on audiotapes, reading logs and learning logs, graphic
organizers, multigenre projects, lists of books read, and compositions. This variety of
work samples reflects the students’ literacy programs. Samples from literature focus
units, literature circles, reading and writing workshop, textbook programs, and content-
area units can be included.
Many teachers collect students’ work in folders, and they assume that portfolios are
basically the same as work folders; however, the two types of collections differ in several
important ways. Perhaps the most important difference is that portfolios are student ori-
ented and work folders are usually teachers’ collections—students choose which sam-
ples will be placed in portfolios, but teachers often place all completed assignments in
work folders. Next, portfolios focus on students’ strengths, not their weaknesses. Because
students decide what goes into portfolios, they choose samples that best represent their
achievements. Another difference is that portfolios involve reflection (D’Aoust, 1992);
through reflection, students pause and become aware of their strengths as readers and
writers. They also use their work samples to identify the literacy procedures, strategies,
and skills they already know and the ones they need to focus on.

Involving Students in Self-Assessment

Portfolios are a useful tool for engaging students in self-assessment and goal setting.
Students learn to reflect on and assess their own reading and writing activities and their
development as readers and writers (Stires, 1991). Teachers begin by asking students
to think about their reading and writing in terms of contrasts. For reading, students
identify the books they’ve read that they liked most and least, and they ask themselves
what these choices suggest about themselves as readers. They also identify what they
do well in reading and what they need to improve. In writing, students make similar
contrasts: They identify their best compositions and others that weren’t as good, and
they think about what they do well when they write and what to improve. By making
these comparisons, students begin to reflect on their literacy development.
Teachers use minilessons and conferences to teach about the characteristics of good
readers and writers. In particular, they discuss these topics:
What fluent reading is
Which reading strategies and skills students use

22
78 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

How students demonstrate their comprehension

How students value books they’ve read
What makes a good project to apply reading knowledge
What makes an effective piece of writing
Which writing strategies are most effective
How to use writing rubrics
How proofreading and correcting mechanical errors are a courtesy to readers

As students learn about what it means to be effective readers and writers, they acquire
the tools they need to reflect on and evaluate their own reading and writing. They learn
how to think about themselves as readers and writers and acquire the vocabulary to use
in their reflections, such as goal, strategy, and rubric.
Students write notes on items they choose to put into their portfolios. In these self-
assessments, students explain the reasons for their choices and identify strengths and
accomplishments in their work. In some classrooms, students write their reflections and
other comments on index cards, and in other classrooms, they design special comment
sheets that they attach to the items in their portfolios.
Teachers usually collect baseline reading and writing samples at the beginning of
the school year and then conduct portfolio review conferences with students at the end
of each grading period. At these conferences, the teacher and the student talk about the
items being placed in the portfolio and the student’s self-assessments. Students also talk
about what they want to improve or accomplish during the next grading period, and
these points become their goals.

Conferences
This fourth grader meets with
his teacher for 15 to 20 min-
utes to talk about his achieve-
ment at the end of the second
grading period. Even though
it’s time-consuming, this
teacher meets with each stu-
dent at the end of every grad-
ing period to talk about the
student’s progress, identify
standards-based accomplish-
ments, select pieces to add to
the portfolio, determine
grades, and set goals for the
next quarter. Through this
process, teachers involve
students in assessment, and
students become more re-
sponsible for their own learn-
ing as they self-assess their
progress and set goals for
themselves.

23
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 79

Showcasing Portfolios
At the end of the school year, many teachers organize “Portfolio Share Days” to cel-
ebrate students’ accomplishments and to provide an opportunity for students to share
their portfolios with classmates and the wider community (Porter & Cleland, 1995).
Often family members, local businesspeople, school administrators, local politicians,
college students, and others are invited to attend. Students and community mem-
bers form small groups, and students share their portfolios, pointing out their
accomplishments and strengths. This activity is especially useful in involving
community members in the school and showing them the types of literacy activities
in which students are involved as well as how students are becoming effective read-
ers and writers.
These sharing days also help students accept responsibility for their own learning—
especially those students who have not been as motivated as their classmates. When less
motivated students listen to their classmates talk about their work and how they have
grown as readers and writers, they often decide to work harder the next year.

Why Portfolios Are Worthwhile

Portfolios are used to document students’ work, evaluate their progress, and showcase
their achievements (Afflerbach, 2007b). Collections of work samples add context to stu-
dents’ learning, and students become more reflective about the quality of their reading
and writing. There are other benefits, for both students and teachers:

• Students feel ownership of their work.

• Students become more responsible about their work.
• Students set goals and are motivated to work toward accomplishing them.
• Students make connections between learning and assessing.
• Students’ self-esteem is enhanced.
• Portfolios eliminate the need to grade all student work.
• Portfolios are used in student and parent conferences.
• Portfolios complement the information provided on report cards.

In schools where portfolios are used schoolwide, students overwhelmingly report that
by using portfolios, they’re better able to show their parents what they’re learning and
also better able to set goals for themselves (Kuhs, Johnson, Agruso, & Monrad, 2001).
Teachers also find that portfolios enable them to assess their students more thoroughly,
and students are better able to see their own progress.

High-Stakes Testing
nnual high-stakes testing is emphasized in American schools with the goal
of improving the quality of reading instruction. These tests are designed
to objectively measure students’ knowledge according to grade-level standards. The
current emphasis on testing and on state-level standards are reform efforts that began
in response to The National Commission on Education report A Nation at Risk (1983),
which argued that American schools were failing miserably. The report stated that
American students’ test scores were dropping, comparing unfavorably with students’

24
80 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

scores in other industrialized countries, and it concluded that the United States was
in jeopardy of losing its global superiority. The No Child Left Behind Act, which promoted
an increased focus on reading instruction to improve students’ reading performance
and narrow the racial and ethnic gaps in achievement, reinforced the call for annual
standardized testing.
Researchers have repeatedly refuted these arguments (Bracey, 2004; McQuillan,
1998). Allington (2006) explained that average test scores have remained stable for
30 years despite the dramatic increases in federal funding over the past decade. He
goes on to explain that reporting average scores obscures important findings, and it’s
necessary to examine subgroup data to discover that most students from middle-class
families read well even though many students from low-income families lag behind.
Allington also notes that despite a gap, significant progress has been made in closing
the achievement gap between white and minority students at the same time the num-
ber of minority students has grown tremendously. Finally, he points out that grade-
level standards of achievement have increased in the last 50 years, so that what was
considered fifth-grade level is now fourth-grade level, and older readability formulas
have been renormed to reflect today’s higher grade-level standards. Nonetheless, the
public’s perception that schools are failing persists.
High-stakes testing is different than classroom assessment. The test scores typi-
cally provide little information for making day-to-day instructional decisions, but stu-
dents, teachers, administrators, and schools are judged and held accountable by the
results. The scores are used to make important educational decisions for students—
to determine school placement and high school graduation, for example. These scores
influence administrators’ evaluations of teachers’ effectiveness and even their salaries
in some states, and they are used to reward or sanction administrators, schools, and
school districts.
Standardized tests are comprehensive, with batteries of subtests covering vocabu-
lary, comprehension, writing mechanics, and spelling. Figure 3–4 presents an overview
of the most commonly used tests. Most tests have multiple-choice items, although a
few are introducing open-ended questions that require students to write responses.
Classroom teachers administer the tests to their students each year, typically in the
spring.

Problems With High-Stakes Testing

A number of problems are associated with high-stakes testing (IRA, 1999). Students
feel the pressure of these tests, and researchers have confirmed what many teachers
have noticed: Students don’t try harder because of them (Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris,
2005). Struggling students, in particular, get discouraged and feel defeated, and over
time, test pressure destroys their motivation and actually harms their achievement.
In addition, student dropout rates are rising.
Teachers complain that they feel compelled to improve students’ test scores at
any price, and they lose valuable instructional time for practice sessions and the ad-
ministration of the test itself (Hollingworth, 2007). Overemphasizing the test often
leads teachers to abandon a balanced approach to instruction: Sometimes students
spend more time completing practice tests than reading books and writing compo-
sitions. One of the most insidious side effects is that teachers are often directed to
focus on certain groups of students, especially those scoring just below a cutoff point,
in hopes of improving test scores.

25
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 81

FIGURE 3–4 N Standardized Achievement Tests

Test Description Components Special Features Publisher
Iowa Test of The ITBS provides Vocabulary The ITBS is the oldest Iowa schools are
Basic Skills information to Comprehension statewide assessment served by the Iowa
(ITBS) improve instruction. Oral language program. It can be Testing Program;
Mechanics administered in the fall outside Iowa, the test
Spelling or spring. is available from
Riverside.

Metropolitan The MAT measures Vocabulary Test items are aligned The MAT can be
Achievement students’ learning Comprehension with the IRA/NCTE ordered from
Test (MAT) using real-world Mechanics Language Arts Pearson.
content. Some items Writing Standards. The MAT
are multiple choice; Spelling also provides Lexile
others are scores.
performance based.

Stanford The SAT measures Vocabulary The SAT also estimates The SAT is published
Achievement students’ learning Comprehension students’ reading by Pearson.
Test (SAT) according to state Mechanics levels using Lexile
standards. Writing scores.
Spelling

TerraNova This innovative test Vocabulary Lexile scores are The TNT is published
Test (TNT) uses both multiple- Comprehension reported. Also, one by CTB/McGraw-Hill.
choice and Mechanics version of the test is
constructed-response Spelling available online.
items that allow
students to write
responses.

Preparing for Standardized Tests

Standardized tests are a unique text genre, and they require readers and writers to
do different things than they would normally, so teachers can’t assume that students
already know how to take tests. It’s essential that teachers prepare students to take
high-stakes tests without abandoning a balanced approach to instruction that’s
aligned to state standards (Calkins, Montgomery, & Santman, 1998). Greene and
Melton (2007) agree; they maintain that teachers must prepare students for high-
stakes tests without sacrificing their instructional program. Unfortunately, with the
pressure to raise test scores, some teachers are having students take more multiple-
choice tests while writing fewer essays and creating fewer projects.
Hollingworth (2007) recommends these five ways to prepare students for high-
stakes tests without sacrificing the instructional program:

• Teachers check that their state’s literacy standards align with their instructional
program and make any needed adjustments to ensure that they’re teaching what’s
going to be on the test.
• Teachers set goals with students and use informal assessments to regularly mon-
itor their progress.

26
82 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

• Teachers actively engage students in authentic literacy activities so that they be-
come capable readers and writers.
• Teachers explain the purpose of the tests and how the results will be used, with-
out making students anxious.
• Teachers stick with a balanced approach that combines explicit instruction and
authentic application.

Other researchers advise that in addition to these recommendations, teachers pre-

pare students to take standardized tests by teaching them how to read and answer
test items and having them take practice tests to hone their test-taking strategies (Mc-
Cabe, 2003). Preparing for tests involves explaining their purpose, examining the
genre and format of multiple-choice tests, teaching the formal language of tests and
test-taking strategies, and providing opportunities for students to take practice tests;
and these lessons should be folded into the existing instructional program, not re-
place it. Greene and Melton (2007) organized test preparation into minilessons that
they taught as part of reading workshop.

The Genre of Standardized Tests. Students need opportunities to examine old test
forms to learn about the genre of standardized tests and how test questions are format-
ted. They’ll notice that tests look different than other texts they’ve read; they’re typi-
cally printed in black and white, the text is dense, and few illustrations are included.
Sometimes words, phrases, and lines in the text are numbered, bolded, or underlined.
Through this exploration, students begin to think about what makes one type of text
harder to read than others, and with practice, they get used to how tests are formatted
so that they’re better able to read them.

The Language of Testing. Standardized reading tests use formal language that’s un-
familiar to many students. For example, some tests use the word passage instead of text
and author’s intent instead of main idea. Test makers also use locate, except, theme, reveal,
inform, reason, in order to, provide suspense, and other words that students may not un-
derstand. Greene and Melton (2007) call the language of testing “test talk” and explain
that “students are helpless on standardized reading tests if they can’t decipher test talk”
(p. 8). Students need help understanding test talk so that high-stakes tests really meas-
ure what they know.

Test-Taking Strategies. Students vary the test-taking strategies they use according to
the type of test they’re taking. Most standardized tests employ multiple-choice ques-
tions. Here’s a list of test-taking strategies that students use to answer multiple-choice
questions:

Read the Entire Question First. Students read the entire question before answer-
ing to make sure they understand what it’s asking. For questions about a reading
passage, students read the questions first to guide their reading.

Look for Key Words in the Question. Students identify key words in the question,
such as compare, except, and author’s intent, that will guide them to choose the cor-
rect answer.

Read All Answer Choices Before Choosing the Correct One. After students read
the question, they stop and think about the answer before reading all possible an-
swers. Then they eliminate the unlikely choices and identify the correct answer.

27
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 83

Answer Easier Questions First. Students answer the questions they know, skip-
ping the difficult ones, and then they go back and answer the questions they
skipped.

Make Smart Guesses. When students don’t know the answer, they should make
a smart guess, unless there’s a penalty for guessing. To make a smart guess, students
eliminate the answer choices they’re sure are wrong, think about what they know
about the topic, and then pick the best remaining choice. The correct answer also
is often the longest one.

Stick With Your First Answer. Students shouldn’t second-guess themselves; their
first answer is probably right. They shouldn’t change answers unless they’re cer-
tain that their first answer was wrong.

Pace Yourself. Students budget their time wisely so they’ll be able to finish the test.
They don’t spend too much time on any one question.

Check Your Work Carefully. Students check that they’ve answered every question,
if they finish early.

Students use these test-taking strategies along with reading strategies, including de-
termining importance, questioning, and rereading, when they’re taking standardized
tests. Teaching students about Question-Answer-Relationships helps them to under-
stand that sometimes answers to test questions can be found in a passage they’ve just
read, or they have to use their own knowledge.
Preparing for tests should be embedded in literacy activi-
ties and not take up a great deal of instructional time. Teach- Be Strategic!
ers often teach test-taking strategies through minilessons Test-Taking Strategies
where they explain the strategy, model its use, and provide op- Students use these test-taking
portunities for guided practice and discussion. Greene and strategies to answer multiple-choice ques-
Melton (2007) recommend teaching minilessons on test- tions on standardized tests:
taking strategies as well as the genre of tests, test formats, and 3 Read the entire question first
the language of tests as part of reading workshop. They reported 3 Look for key words in the question
that their students, many of whom are English learners and 3 Read all answer choices before choosing
struggling readers and writers, became more confident and em- the correct one
powered test takers through test-preparation minilessons, and 3 Answer easier questions first
their test scores improved. 3 Make smart guesses
3 Stick with your first answer
3 Pace yourself
Practice Tests. Teachers design practice tests with the same
3 Check your work carefully
types of items used on the standardized tests students will take.
They use easy-to read materials for practice tests so students Students learn to use these strategies
can focus on practicing test-taking strategies without being through test-prep lessons and practice tests.
challenged by the difficulty level of the text or the questions.
They include a combination of unrelated narrative, poetic, and expository passages
on the tests because all three types of texts are found on high-stakes tests. Teachers
also provide answer sheets similar to those used on the standardized test so that stu-
dents gain experience with them. So that students will be familiar with the testing
conditions, teachers simulate them in the classroom or take students to where the
test will be administered for practice sessions. Through these practice tests, students
develop both confidence in their test-taking abilities and the stamina to persist
through long tests.

28
84 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Preparation for reading tests is especially important because when students aren’t
familiar with multiple-choice tests, they’ll score lower than they otherwise would.
Don’t confuse preparation with teaching to the test: Preparing for a test involves
teaching students how to take a test, but teaching to the test is the unethical practice
of drilling students on actual questions from old tests. The term “teaching to the test”
is also used in a less pejorative way to describe when teachers tailor instruction to meet
state standards.

Researchers question the use of standardized achievement tests with English learners
because these tests are often invalid, underestimating students’ achievement (Peregoy
& Boyle, 2008). It seems obvious that when students have limited English proficiency,
their test performance would be affected; however, even students who do well in the
classroom often score poorly on standardized achievement tests (Lindholm-Leary &
Borsato, 2006). There are several reasons for this dichotomy. First, students are less
familiar with test-taking procedures, and it’s likely that ELs are more stressed by their
unfamiliarity than native English speakers are. A second reason is that the language used
in directions and test items is often complex, making comprehension more difficult for
ELs. Another reason is cultural differences: English learners often lack background
knowledge about the topics addressed in the reading passages and test questions.
Researchers believe that the best way to assess English learners more fairly is to
provide accommodations, by modifying either the test or the testing procedure (Lind-
holm-Leary & Borsato, 2006). They’ve experimented with modifying tests by simpli-
fying the language, translating the test into students’ home language, or adding visual
supports, and modifying the testing procedure by providing additional time, allowing
students to use bilingual dictionaries, or translating or explaining the directions. Un-
fortunately, data are inconclusive about the effectiveness of these accommodations.
Currently, there’s renewed interest in rewriting test questions on high-stakes tests to
avoid unnecessarily complex English syntactic structures and academic vocabulary so
that ELs can actually demonstrate their knowledge.
Probably the best way to ameliorate the effects of ELs’ potentially invalid test
results is to use multiple measures, including some authentic assessments to document
English learners’ language proficiency and literacy achievement. This accommodation,
however, is unlikely to be implemented in today’s educational climate where both stu-
dents and teachers are being held accountable using the results from a single test.

The Politics of High-Stakes Testing

High-stakes testing is a politically charged issue (Casbarro, 2005). Test scores are
being used as a means to reform schools, and although improving the quality of in-
struction and ensuring that all students have equal access to educational opportuni-
ties are essential goals, there are unwanted consequences for both students and
teachers. Proponents claim that schools are being reformed; however, although some
gains in test scores for minority groups have been reported, many teachers feel that
the improvement is the result of “teaching to the test.” So far, no results indicate
that students have actually become better readers and writers because of standard-
ized achievement tests.

29
 C H A P T E R 3 Assessing Literacy Learning N 85

CHAPTER 3

How Effective Teachers Assess Literacy Learning

3 Teachers determine students’ independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels.

3 Teachers informally monitor students’ progress in reading and writing.

3 Teachers use diagnostic assessments to identify struggling students’ strengths and weaknesses and then
provide instruction to address problem areas.

3 Teachers have students document their literacy learning in portfolios.

3 Teachers prepare students for high-stakes tests without sacrificing their instructional programs.

30
 CHAPTER 4

Differentiating
Instruction

he students in Mrs. Shasky’s sixth-

grade class are reading The Breadwin-
ner (Ellis, 2001), about a girl who
disguises herself as a boy to support her fam-
ily during the Taliban era in Afghanistan.
Before students began reading the novel, they
completed a webquest about Afghan culture
and listened to an online interview with the
novel’s author. Today, some students are
sitting on a sofa and lounging on floor
pillows in the reading area as they read
independently. Others are clustered around
Mrs. Shasky, listening as she reads the book
aloud; she reads softly to avoid distracting the
other students. Some students close to Mrs.
Shasky follow along in their copies, but oth-
ers watch their teacher, listening intently.
Mrs. Shasky provides two ways to read
the novel because her students’ reading
levels vary from third through seventh grade.
Those who read at fifth- through seventh-
Mrs. Shasky Differentiates Instruction grade levels can read the book
independently, but her 10 students who read
at third- and fourth-grade levels need extra
support; that’s why she reads the book aloud
to them.
After reading the chapter, the class comes together for a grand conversation. Be-
cause the students have many questions about life under Taliban rule, Mrs. Shasky takes
more discussion time than she would like to answer their questions, but gradually they’re
developing the background knowledge to understand the story. Mrs. Shasky teaches com-
prehension as they discuss the novel. She asks inferential questions that require students
to go beyond literal information, for example: “Why did the Taliban arrest Parvana’s

From Chapter 4 of Literacy in the Middle Grades: Teaching Reading and Writing to Fourth Through
Eighth Grades, 2/e. Gail E. Tompkins. Copyright © 2010 by Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
31
 father?” Hector quickly answers, “Because he went to college in another country, and
they don’t want teachers to do that.” Mrs. Shasky persists, “Why doesn’t the Taliban want
teachers to study in another country?” No one has an idea, so Mrs. Shasky asks the ques-
tion another way: “Lots of teachers in America go to other countries to study. You know
that I visited schools in China last summer. Why is that a good idea?” The students of-
fer several reasons—to meet different people, to learn new things, and to study new ways
of teaching. “Wouldn’t the Taliban want teachers to do these things, too?” Mrs. Shasky
asks. Marisela replies, “The Taliban closed the schools because they want to control
everyone. They don’t like teachers who have new ideas because they could make trou-
ble.” “How could they make trouble?” Mrs. Shasky continues. Jared suggests, “Parvana’s
father and the other teachers could tell people that there is a better way to live, and then
they might fight the Taliban.” As they talk, students add burga, hospitable, turban, chador,
nan, exhaustion, and other new words to the word wall posted on a nearby wall.
Literature study is only one part of Mrs. Shasky’s literacy block; her schedule is
shown here. She differentiates instruction to ensure that her students are successful.
Mrs. Shasky begins each morning with Accelerated Reader™. All students read inde-
pendently in leveled books for 30 minutes, using books at their reading level, and com-
plete online comprehension checks. Mrs. Shasky supervises students as they read, and
she also monitors their progress. A chart is posted in the classroom so students can track
their reading growth.

Ways Mrs. Shasky Differentiates Instruction

Schedule Grade-Level Students Struggling Students
8:30–9:00 Students read books at their Students read books at their
Accelerated reading level and check their reading level and check their
Reader comprehension online. comprehension online.

9:00–10:00 Students read the featured Students listen to the teacher

Literature novel independently and partic- read the featured novel aloud
Study ipate in grand conversations. and participate in grand
conversations.

10:00–10:15 Mrs. Shasky presents whole- Mrs. Shasky presents whole-

Minilesson class minilessons on grade- class minilessons on grade-level
level literacy topics. literacy topics and others for
small groups as needed.

10:15–11:15 Students are involved in activ- Students participate in guided

Activities/ ities related to the featured reading groups and work in
Guided novel. small groups on activities
Reading related to the featured novel.

11:15–11:45 Students participate in whole- Students participate in whole-

Word Study class and small-group word- class and small-group word-
study activities and lessons. study activities and lessons.
They use an individualized They use an individualized
approach to spelling. approach to spelling.

87

32
88 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Next, students participate in a literature study. Books are usually chosen from
the district’s recommended reading list for sixth grade, and Mrs. Shasky supplements
with other books such as The Breadwinner that are timely or that she thinks would
appeal to her students. The novel becomes a vehicle for teaching reading strategies
and literary analysis.
The third activity is a minilesson. Mrs. Shasky teaches minilessons on compre-
hension strategies, literary analysis, and other grade-level topics. Sometimes the
whole class participates, and at other times, the lesson is designed for a specific group.
She ties lessons to the novel they’re reading; her focus for this novel is on how au-
thors develop theme. Right now, the students are overwhelmed by the devastating
effects of war, but later during the unit, Mrs. Shasky redirects the focus to human
rights. Today, she reviews character development and explains how authors develop
characters. She asks students to think about Parvana, the main character in The Bread-
winner, and how the author developed her. As students share ideas, Mrs. Shasky draws
a cluster, a weblike diagram, on chart paper and writes Parvana’s name in the cen-
ter circle. She divides the diagram into four sections and writes appearance, actions,
talking, and thinking in the sections. Next, she writes a sentence or two that students
have suggested in each section. Mrs. Shasky rereads the chart and asks, “Which of
the four ways of character development is most important in The Breadwinner? What
is the author trying to tell us?” The students are torn between “appearance” and “ac-
tions.” Nita says, “It’s her clothes. She has to dress like a boy.” Javier disagrees, “No,
it’s what she’s doing. She is pretending to be a boy to help her family. That’s what
matters.” With more discussion, most students agree with Javier. The diagram is
shown on the next page.
Most of the students return to their desks to work on various activities, but Mrs.
Shasky keeps a group of struggling readers who need more practice writing summaries
with her to write a summary statement about character development. She takes the stu-
dents’ dictation quickly as they develop this summary statement, which they’ll share
with the whole class:

Deborah Ellis tells us about Parvana in four ways: appearance, actions, talking,
and thinking. The most important way we learn about Parvana is by her actions.
She pretends she is a boy to make money so her family doesn’t starve.

Next week, Mrs. Shasky will introduce human rights with this scenario: Imag-
ine that when you wake up tomorrow morning, life as you know it is totally differ-
ent—it’s like Parvana’s life. What will be different? What will you do? What won’t
you be able to do? Students will talk and write about the ways their lives would
change. Mrs. Shasky will explain what human rights are, talk about the rights guar-
anteed in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and have students play an online game
about human rights. Later, they’ll participate in differentiated activities to think more
deeply about the human rights they enjoy and those denied to Parvana.
While students are working on activities, Mrs. Shasky meets with small groups
of struggling readers for guided reading lessons. One group is reading at early third-
grade level (Level M), the second group is reading at late third-grade/early fourth-
grade level (Level P), and the third group is reading at fourth-grade level (Level R).
She usually meets with two groups a day for 25 minutes to read short chapter books
at their reading levels; they read and discuss one or two chapters a day and then
reread the chapters independently.
The group at the early third-grade level is reading Greenburg’s wacky series,
The Zack Files, about a fifth grader named Zack. In the book they’ve just finished

33
 C H A P T E R 4 Differentiating Instruction N 89

reading, How I Went From Bad to Verse (Greenburg, 2000), Zack is bitten by an in-
sect and catches Rhyme Disease. He speaks only in rhyme, and worse yet, he floats
above the ground and turns blue. Finally, his teacher cures him and his life re-
turns to normal—at least until the next book. The students reread the last two
chapters and talk again about Zack’s weird symptoms and his teacher’s unusual
cures.
These students also ceremoniously list the book on a chart of the books they’ve
read; How I Went From Bad to Verse is number 28 on the list, and the students are
amazed! “I’ve never read so many books before in my life,” Ana comments. “I told
my Tio Roberto that I’m a good reader now,” Mark says. The students will take the
book home tonight to read to their parents, a sibling, a grandparent, or a neighbor.
After conducting another guided reading group, Mrs. Shasky begins word study.
Students do vocabulary and spelling activities during word study. On Monday, Mrs.
Shasky takes the entire 30 minutes for spelling. She administers the pretest, and stu-
dents check it themselves. Then they choose the words they’ll study and make two
copies of their word list, one for themselves and one for Mrs. Shasky. Because she’s
implemented an individualized spelling program, students study different words, de-
pending on their developmental levels. The students practice their spelling words
each day and take the final test on Friday.
On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, students participate in vocabulary les-
sons to study the meanings of specific words, examine root words, and learn to use

A Character Diagram About Parvana

34
90 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

a dictionary and a thesaurus. They use words from the word wall for most activities.
Over the past 5 weeks, Mrs. Shasky has taught lessons on these root words:

ann/enn ( year): annual, anniversary, millennium

graph (write): paragraph, autobiography, photograph
mar/mer (sea): mermaid, submarine, marsh
tele ( far): telecast, telephone, telethon
volv (roll ): revolution, evolution, revolver

The students made posters about these root words, and they’re displayed around the
classroom. Today, students are examining words on the word wall to identify other
root words.
Because Mrs. Shasky wants to do more to help her struggling readers, she de-
veloped Shasky’s Reading Club, a twice-a-week after-school intervention. She in-
vited the 10 struggling readers to stay after school on Tuesdays and Thursdays to
participate. She began the club after parent conferences in early October. All par-
ents agreed to pick up their children after the club and to provide 30 minutes of in-
dependent reading time at home 4 days a week.
During the 45-minute reading club meeting, students read self-selected books
independently and participate in guided reading groups. Mrs. Shasky is pleased to
see these students’ growth over the 4 months the club has been operating. She’s no-
ticed that her struggling students behave like her grade-level readers do during the
school day: Instead of being reticent and unsure of themselves as they sometimes
are during the school day, they participate willingly in discussions and confidently
assume leadership roles.
As the club meeting begins, the students have picked up books they’re reading
and settled on the sofa and on floor pillows to read. Mrs. Shasky checks that every-
one has an appropriate book, and then she calls a group of four students reading at
Level P; they’re reading Jon Scieszka’s The Time Warp Trio series about three mod-
ern-day friends who warp back into history. These students have already read Your
Mother Was a Neanderthal (2004c) and Tut Tut (2004b).
Now they’re reading Knights of the Kitchen Table (2004a), in which the boys find
themselves at King Arthur’s court. A giant and a dragon threaten Camelot, and the
boys help King Arthur and his knights. The first few chapters were difficult because
the students didn’t know the King Arthur stories, but Mrs. Shasky told the stories
to build their background knowledge. The vocabulary was unfamiliar, too—vile
knaves, methinks, and foul-mouthed enchanters, for example—but now the group is re-
ally into the story. They begin by rereading Chapter 5 and doing a read-around,
where they take turns randomly reading aloud their favorite sentences from the chap-
ter. Then Mrs. Shasky takes them on a text walk of Chapter 6, and they examine a
full-page illustration of the giant. Hector predicts, “I think Sir Joe the Magnificent
will kill the giant and the dragon.” “You should say he will slay them. Slay means to
kill,” explains Jesus. Mrs. Shasky asks how the knight might slay the giant and the
dragon, and the boys quickly suggest using swords or guns, but the illustrations don’t
provide any clues.
Mrs. Shasky explains that this riddle is going to be important in the chapter: Why
did the giant wear red suspenders? The students aren’t familiar with suspenders, so Mrs.
Shasky shows them a pair of her husband’s. She models them and explains that some-
times her husband wears suspenders instead of a belt to hold his pants up. Marisela,

35
 C H A P T E R 4 Differentiating Instruction N 91

who has been listening quietly while the boys eagerly talked about slaying dragons,
asks, “So, why did the giant wear suspenders?” The teacher explains that they’ll learn
the answer as they read the chapter, and then Marisela predicts, “You have to be smart
to answer a riddle, so I think those boys will use their brains to save Camelot.” Mrs.
Shasky smiles in agreement and says, “Let’s read Chapter 6 to see if Marisela’s pre-
diction is right.”
The students read the short chapter quickly, and while they’re reading, Mrs.
Shasky helps them decode several unfamiliar words and explains a confusing section
when two boys ask about it. The group now knows the riddle’s answer: Why did the
giant wear red suspenders? To hold his pants up. They like the riddle and show interest
in reading more riddles. Mrs. Shasky promises to get some riddle books tomorrow.
They discuss the chapter, and Jesus sums up the group’s feelings by saying, “Bleob
[the giant] should be dead and gone by now. I just want to keep reading and find out
what happens.” Because the giant and the dragon do destroy themselves in the next
chapter, Mrs. Shasky lets them continue reading.
Mrs. Shasky teaches a second guided reading lesson while the other students read
independently. They finish when only several minutes remain before the reading club
ends, so Mrs. Shasky joins the group in the back of the classroom and asks each stu-
dent to briefly tell what he or she has been reading.

eachers know that their students vary—in their interests and motivation,
their background knowledge and prior experiences, and their culture and
language proficiency as well as their literacy achievement—so it’s important to
take these individual differences into account as they plan for instruction.
Differentiated instruction is based on this understanding that students differ in
important ways. According to Tomlinson (2001), differentiated instruction “means
‘shaking up’ what goes on in the classroom so that students have multiple options for
taking in information, making sense of ideas, and expressing what they learn” ( p. 1).
Customizing instruction is especially important for struggling readers and writers who
can’t access grade-level textbooks and other reading materials.
In the vignette, for example, Mrs. Shasky modified instruction to meet her students’
needs. She provided additional support for struggling students by reading aloud to those
who couldn’t read the featured novel and taught guided reading lessons. In addition, Mrs. Check the Compendium of
Shasky created an after-school intervention program for her struggling readers and got Instructional Procedures,
these students’ parents to commit to providing time for independent reading at home. which follows Chapter 12,
for more information on the
highlighted terms.
Ways to Differentiate Instruction
he expectation that all students will meet the same literacy standards at each
grade level implies that everyone should receive the same instructional pro-
gram, but teachers know that some students are working at grade level but others are
struggling or advanced. Because students’ achievement levels differ and their interests
and preferred ways of learning vary, teachers modify their instructional programs so
that all students can be more successful. Tomlinson (2001) explains that in differenti-
ated classrooms, “teachers provide specific ways for students to learn as deeply as pos-
sible and as quickly as possible without assuming one student’s road map for learning
is identical to anyone else’s” (p. 2). Heacox (2002) characterizes differentiated instruc-
tion as rigorous, relevant, flexible, and complex:

36
92 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

FIGURE 4–1 N Characteristics of

Differentiated Instruction
High Standards
Teachers maintain a commitment to meeting grade-level standards for all students.

Assessment–Instruction Link
Teachers use assessment procedures to diagnose students’ needs and plan instruction
to address those needs.

Flexible Grouping
Teachers have students work individually, in small groups, and as a class, and they
change grouping arrangements to reflect students’ achievement levels and interests.

Reading Materials
Teachers teach with collections of books and other reading materials at varying
difficulty levels.

Varied Instructional Activities

Teachers design activities with multiple options to meet students’ instructional levels.

Instructional Modifications
Teachers modify instruction to respond to students’ specific learning needs and
continue to make adjustments during instruction to ensure that all students are
successful.

Respect
Teachers respect students and value their work.

Academic Achievement
Teachers focus on individual students’ academic achievement and success.

Adapted from Heacox, 2002; Robb, 2008; Tomlinson, 2001.

Rigorous means that teachers provide challenging instruction that encourages stu-
dents’ active engagement in learning.
Relevant means that teachers address literacy standards to assure that students learn
essential knowledge, strategies, and skills.
Flexible means that teachers use a variety of instructional procedures and grouping
techniques to support students.
Complex means that teachers engage students in thinking deeply about books they’re
reading, compositions they’re writing, and concepts they’re learning.

It’s crucial that teachers recognize the diversity of learners in 21st-century classrooms
and understand that students don’t need to participate in the same learning activities
or work in whole-class groups all day long. The characteristics of differentiated instruc-
tion are summarized in Figure 4–1.
Teachers modify instruction in three ways: They modify the content that students
learn, the process used for instruction, and the products students create to demonstrate
their learning (Heacox, 2002; Tomlinson, 2001):
Differentiating the Content. The content is the “what” of teaching, the literacy
knowledge, strategies, and skills that students learn at each grade level. The content

37
 C H A P T E R 4 Differentiating Instruction N 93

reflects state-mandated grade-level standards. Teachers concentrate on teaching the

essential content, and to meet students’ needs, they provide more instruction and prac-
tice for some students and less for others. For those who are already familiar with the
content, they increase the complexity of instructional activities. Teachers decide how
to differentiate the content by assessing students’ knowledge before they begin teach-
ing, and then they match students with appropriate activities.
Differentiating the Process. The process is the “how” of teaching, the instruction that
teachers provide, the instructional materials they use, and the activities in which stu-
dents are involved to ensure that they’re successful. Teachers group students for in-
struction and choose reading materials at appropriate levels of difficulty. They also
make decisions about involving students in activities that allow them to process what
they’re learning through oral, written, or visual means.
Differentiating the Product. The product is the end result of learning; it demonstrates
what students understand and how well they can apply what they’ve learned. Students
usually create projects, such as posters, oral reports, board games, websites, and col-
lections of poems. Teachers vary the complexity of the projects they ask students to
create by changing the level of thinking that’s required to complete them.

New Literacies
gling readers. Sometimes the book collections are housed in
Computer-Based Reading the school library, or teachers set out smaller collections in
Programs their classrooms.
Students take computer-generated quizzes to check
Scholastic’s Reading Counts! and Renaissance
their comprehension after reading each book, and the ques-
Learning’s Accelerated Reader™ are two popular K–12
tions focus on literal comprehension. Students receive the
computer-based supplemental reading programs. They’re
results immediately afterward so they can learn from their
consistent with differentiated instruction because students
errors. Teachers track students’ progress using computer-
choose books to read independently from a leveled collec-
generated reports with information about students’ com-
tion. More than half of American schools use one of these
prehension, their reading rates, and the amount of reading
programs.
they’ve done.
Both programs provide students with daily opportuni-
Students participating in these programs score higher
ties for reading practice, and students who do more reading
on standardized tests than students who don’t use them;
are better readers (Topping & Paul, 1999). The programs
nonetheless, the programs are controversial (Holmes &
are predicated on these principles:
Brown, 2003; Schmidt, 2008). One complaint is that the
G Students read authentic books at their reading levels. quizzes focus on literal comprehension, but proponents
G Quizzes provide frequent monitoring of students’ counter that the purpose is to determine whether students
comprehension. have read a book, not to assess higher-level comprehension.
G Students’ motivation grows as they score well on the Next, detractors argue that students have limited choices
accompanying quizzes. because they can read only books that match their reading
G Teachers use test results to quickly intervene with strug- level, but proponents say that students can read other
gling students. books at other times. Another complaint is that students of-
These principles reflect the balanced approach to reading ten read the book with the goal of passing the quiz, rather
instruction. than for enjoyment or to learn about a topic, but propo-
More than 100,000 leveled books are included in the nents point out that students need to learn to read for a va-
Accelerated Reader collection and half that many in Reading riety of purposes. Many teachers report liking the program
Counts! One potential problem, however, is that a limited because they can effectively manage students’ independent
number of appropriate books are available for older strug- reading and monitor their progress.

38
94 N PA RT 1 Literacy in the 21st Century

Teachers create a classroom culture that promotes acceptance of individual differ-

ences and is conducive to matching instruction to students. Having a classroom com-
munity where students respect their classmates and can work collaboratively is vital.
They learn that students don’t always do the same activity or read the same book, and
they focus on their own work rather than on what their peers are doing.

Grouping for Instruction

Teachers use three grouping patterns: Sometimes students work together as a whole
class, and at other times, they work in small groups or individually. Deciding which type
of grouping to use depends on the teacher’s purpose, the complexity of the activity, and
students’ learning needs. Small groups should be used flexibly to provide a better
instructional match between students and their achievement levels. In differentiated
classrooms, students are grouped and regrouped often; they aren’t always grouped ac-
cording to achievement levels or with the same classmates.
Teachers use a combination of the three grouping patterns in each instructional
program, but literature focus units and textbook programs use primarily whole-class
groups, literature circles are predominantly small-group programs, and reading and
writing workshop feature mostly individual reading and writing activities. Nonetheless,
each instructional program incorporates all three grouping patterns. The activities
involved in each instructional program are categorized in Figure 4–2.
Teachers use the three grouping patterns for a variety of activities. Whole-class ac-
tivities typically include hot seat and interactive read-alouds. Guided reading and writing
groups are small-group activities. Other activities, such as open-mind portraits and quick-
writing, are done individually. Some activities, such as minilessons and making words,
are used with more than one grouping pattern. In addition, when teachers introduce an
activity, they have students work together as a class to learn the steps involved; then, once
students understand the procedure, they work in small groups or individually.
Guided Reading. Teachers use guided reading lessons to teach reading to small groups
of students who read at the same instructional level (Fountas & Pinnell, 2001). Teach-
ers choose books according to students’ reading levels and their ability to use reading
strategies. They read the book in preparation for the lesson and plan how they’ll teach
it, considering how to develop students’ background knowledge and which concepts
and vocabulary to teach before students begin reading. Next, students do the actual read-
ing themselves, although the teacher may read the first page or two aloud with students
to get them started. After discussing the book, they teach a reading strategy and involve
students in word-study activities. Guided reading lessons usually last approximately
20–30 minutes, and teachers meet with several groups each day.
Guided reading was developed to use with beginning readers, but teachers also use
it with older students, especially English learners and struggling readers who need more
support to decode and comprehend books they’re reading. Sometimes guided reading
is confused with round-robin reading and literature circles, but these three small-group
instructional activities are different. In round-robin reading, an approach that’s no
longer recommended, students take turns reading aloud rather than doing their own
reading, and in literature circles, students read and discuss books in small groups with
limited teacher guidance.

Text Sets of Reading Materials

Teachers create text sets of books and other reading materials for students to read
during literature focus units and thematic units. These collections include reading

39
 C H A P T E R 4 Differentiating Instruction N 95

FIGURE 4–2 N Grouping Patterns in the Literacy Programs

Program Whole Class Small Groups Individuals
Literature Teachers: Teachers: Students:
Focus Units • introduce and read the book • teach minilessons • respond in reading logs
• teach minilessons Students: • do word-study activities
Students: • participate in discussions • read related books
• participate in discussions • do word-study activities • create projects
• learn about author and genre • work at centers
• create projects • create projects

Literature Teachers: Students: Students:

Circles • introduce books • read and discuss the book • choose and read the book
• conference with the • prepare for discussions
teacher

Reading Teachers: Students: Students:

Workshop • read aloud to students • share books with • read self-selected books
• teach minilessons classmates • conference with the
Teachers: teacher
• teach minilessons

Writing Teachers: Teachers: Students:

Workshop • read aloud to students • teach minilessons • write on self-selected
• teach minilessons Students: topics
Students: • participate in writing • conference with the
• share writing with groups teacher
classmates • revise and edit at centers
• edit with a partner

Basal Reading Teachers: Students: Students:

Programs • introduce the selection • reread the selection • reread the selection
• teach vocabulary • practice skills • complete workbook
• teach strategies and skills • work at centers assignments
Students: • complete workbook
• read and discuss the assignments
selection

Language Arts Teachers: Students: Students:

Textbooks • introduce the selection • analyze the genre and • read the selection
• teach literary analysis, literary devices • complete assignments
vocabulary, and grammar • complete assignments
Students:
• read and discuss the
selection

materials representing different genres, bookmarked Internet resources, and books

that vary in difficulty level. Figure 4–3 presents Mrs. Shasky’s text set of books and
Internet resources related to The Breadwinner (Ellis, 2001). The list includes all three
books in Deborah Ellis’s trilogy of novels about Parvana and two books of poetry by
Naomi Shihab Nye (2002a, 2002b), an esteemed Arab American poet. Teachers use

40
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
near relation, or the feudal lord, of the slain man was treated as
constructively present at his slaying, because of the closeness of the
bond of blood or of homage between the two. This, at least, is the
most plausible interpretation of Glanvill’s words: “No one is
admissible to prove the accusation unless he be allied in blood to the
deceased or be connected with him by the tie of homage or lordship,
so that he can speak of the death upon testimony of his own
sight.”[1024]
The rule also which required an appellant to offer proof by his own
body was relaxed in certain cases; women, men over sixty years of
age, and those with broken bones or who had lost a limb, an ear, a
nose, or an eye, were unable to fight effectively, and might therefore
appear by proxy.[1025] The privilege thus accorded to women was
looked on with much disfavour as conferring an unfair advantage as
against appellees who were not allowed to produce a substitute.
Accordingly an option was given the man accused by a woman; he
might, in Glanvill’s words, elect either "to abide by the woman’s
proof or to purge himself by the ordeal."[1026] This option was freely
used; an appellee in 1201 was allowed to go to the ordeal of water,
[1027]
while two years later when the widow of a murdered man
offered to prove her accusation “as the court shall consider,” the
accused was allowed to go to the ordeal, “for he has elected to bear
the iron.”[1028] After the virtual abolition of ordeal in 1215, appeals by
women were usually determined per patriam (that is by the sworn
verdict of a jury of neighbours). Such is the doctrine of Bracton,[1029]
whose authority is amply borne out by recorded cases. Thus in 1221,
a man accused by a woman of her husband’s murder offered fifteen
marks for a verdict of the jurors.[1030]
A woman’s right of accusation (even when thus safeguarded from
abuse) was restricted to two occasions, the murder of her husband
and the rape of her own person. Magna Carta mentions only one of
these two grounds of appeal; but silence on the subject of assault
need not be interpreted as indicating any intention to deprive
women of their rights in such cases.[1031]
The present chapter of the Great Charter confines itself to appeals
of murder, declaring that no woman has the right to institute
proceedings in this way for the death of father, son, or friend, but
only for that of her husband. Hard as this rule may seem, the barons
here made no change on existing law. Glanvill does not seem to
recognize the possibility of a woman’s appeal of homicide save for
the death of her husband.[1032] He seems to deduce the reason for
allowing it in that case from the principle already explained: "A
woman is heard in this suit accusing anyone of her husband’s death,
if she speak as being an eye-witness to the fact, because husband
and wife are one flesh"—another example of constructive presence.
[1033]

There seems to be no authority whatever for Coke’s hasty

inference from the provisions of this chapter, that previous to 1215 a
woman had an appeal for the death of any one of her
“ancestors.”[1034] The chapter, in spite of its declaratory nature,
seems an ungallant one, indicating that the barons were more
careful to guard themselves against unnecessary risk than to
champion the cause of defenceless women.[1035]

1021. Cf. supra, c. 36.

1022. Bracton, folio 151 b., cites the case of a champion

sentenced to mutilation of a foot because he confessed that he was
paid to appear, and was not really a witness. The Statute of
Westminster, I. (3 Edward I. c. 41), enacted that champions need
not swear to the personal knowledge of what they maintained. See
also Neilson, Trial by Combat, 48–51.

1023. The appellant “in all cases except murder, that is, secret
homicide, made oath as a witness that he had seen and heard the
deed.” Neilson, Trial by Combat, 48.

1024. Glanvill, XIV. c. 3.

1025. See Bracton, II. ff. 142 b, 145 b; also Neilson, Trial by
Combat 47, and authorities there cited.
 1026. Glanvill, XIV. c. 3.

1027. Sel. Pleas of the Crown, No. 1.

1028. Ibid., No. 68. Cf. No. 119.

1029. Bracton, folio 142 b.

1030. Select Pleas of the Crown, No. 130.

1031. The Act 6 Richard II. c. 6, to prevent the wife’s connivance,

extended the right of appeal in such cases to a woman’s husband,
father, or other near relative; but denied the appellee’s right to the
option of defending himself by battle—thus proving no exception to
the policy of discouraging the duellum wherever possible.

1032. Glanvill, XIV. c. 3.

1033. Glanvill, XIV. c. 33, Fleta I. c. 3, seems by different words to

indicate only the same doctrine of constructive presence, when he
speaks in this connection “de morte viri sui inter brachia sua
interfecti,” although laboured explanations of this passage are
sometimes attempted, e.g. Coke, Second Institute, 93. Pollock and
Maitland (I. 468, n.) dismiss the phrase inter brachia sua as "only a
picturesque ‘common form.’"

1034. See Coke, Second Institute, p. 68, and contrast Pollock and
Maitland, I. 468. John’s justices rejected in 1202 a woman’s claim to
appeal for her father’s death, and some ten years later two other
claims for the death of sons. See Select Pleas of the Crown, Nos. 32,
117, and 118.

1035. A peculiarity in the wording of this clause should, perhaps,

be noticed. It restricts explicitly not appeals by women, but merely
“arrest and imprisonment” following on such.
 CHAPTER FIFTY-FIVE.
Omnes fines qui injuste et contra legem terre facti sunt nobiscum,
et omnia amerciamenta facta injuste et contra legem terre, omnino
condonentur, vel fiat inde per judicium viginti quinque baronum de
quibus fit mencio inferius in securitate pacis, vel per judicium majoris
partis eorundem, una cum predicto Stephano Cantuariensi
archiepiscopo, si interesse poterit, et aliis quos secum ad hoc vocare
voluerit: et si interesse non poterit, nichilominus procedat negocium
sine eo, ita quod, si aliquis vel aliqui de predictis viginti quinque
baronibus fuerint in simili querela, amoveantur quantum ad hoc
judicium, et alii loco eorum per residuos de eisdem viginti quinque,
tantum ad hoc faciendum electi et jurati substituantur.
All fines made with us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all
amercements imposed unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely
remitted, or else it shall be done concerning them according to the decision of
the five-and-twenty barons of whom mention is made below in the clause for
securing the peace, or according to the judgment of the majority of the same,
along with the aforesaid Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be
present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him for this purpose, and
if he cannot be present the business shall nevertheless proceed without him,
provided always that if any one or more of the aforesaid five-and-twenty barons
are in a similar suit, they shall be removed as far as concerns this particular
judgment, others being substituted in their places after having been selected by
the rest of the same five-and-twenty for this purpose only, and after having
been sworn.

The thirty-seventh of the Articles of the Barons, forming the draft

of this chapter, refers specially to one particular class of illegal fines,
namely those exacted by John from defenceless widows in return for
being allowed the peaceful enjoyment of their legal rights of
property in their own and their husband’s estates (“pro dotibus,
maritagiis, et hereditatibus”). It forms thus a natural supplement to
chapter 7. The earlier chapter had confirmed widows in their rights
for the future; this one remits fines unjustly taken in the past. It is
probable that even the clause of the Articles of the Barons did not
intend to limit its own operation to this one group of unjust fines;
and it mentions amercements, without any qualification. In any view,
the terms of Magna Carta were broadened out to embrace illegal
fines and amercements of every sort.[1036]
The distinction between fines and amercements, absolute in
theory but tending to become obliterated in practice, has been
explained in a former chapter.[1037] The system of arbitrary fines,
always so galling a feature in the Crown’s policy throughout the
Middle Ages, culminated in the reign of John, whose talents were
well suited to the development of its ingenious and mean details. Dr.
Stubbs describes the product of his labours as “the system of fines
which was elaborated into that minute and grotesque instrument of
torture which all the historians of the reign have dwelt on in great
detail.”[1038] Hallam commented on this in a passage which has
become classical. "The bishop of Winchester paid a ton of good wine
for not reminding the king (John) to give a girdle to the countess of
Albemarle; and Robert de Vaux five best palfreys, that the same king
might hold his peace about Henry Pinel’s wife. Another paid four
marks for leave to eat (pro licentia comedendi)."[1039]
Unique procedure was provided by the present chapter for
deciding disputes as to the legality of fines and amercements.
Authority to decide was vested in a board of arbitrators to consist of
thirteen or more of the twenty-five executors, together with Stephen
Langton and such others as he chose to summon. No mention is
made of the maximum number whom the primate might thus
nominate, and there is no attempt to define their powers relative to
those of the other members of the board, a somewhat
unbusinesslike omission, but one which testifies to the great
confidence placed in Langton by those who approved its terms. Care
is taken to prevent such members of the twenty-five as were likely
to be biased from sitting in judgments on suits like their own—a
stipulation which might with advantage have been extended to
several other chapters.
This chapter, like others addressed to the special circumstances of
John’s reign, found no echo in future charters.

1036. In its expanded form the clause becomes a supplement, not

merely to c. 7, but also to cc. 20, 21 and 22 (which defined
procedure at amercements), and to cc. 36 and 40 (which
condemned John’s practice of refusing writs and justice until heavy
fines were offered for them).

1037. See supra, c. 20.

1038. See Preface to W. Coventry, II. lxix.

1039. Middle Ages, II. 438. Hallam’s examples are all drawn from
Madox, I. 507-9. Other illustrations of fines and amercements may
be found under several of the foregoing chapters. Every man who
began a plea and lost it, or abandoned it, was amerced.
 CHAPTER FIFTY-SIX.
Si nos disseisivimus vel elongavimus Walenses de terris vel
libertatibus vel rebus aliis, sine legali judicio parium suorum, in
Anglia vel in Wallia,[1040] eis statim reddantur; et si contencio super
hoc orta fuerit, tunc inde fiat in marchia per judicium parium
suorum, de tenementis Anglie secundum legem Anglie, de
tenementis Wallie secundum legem Wallie, de tenementis marchie
secundum legem marchie. Idem facient Walenses nobis et nostris.
If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other
things, without the legal judgment of their peers in England or in Wales, they
shall be immediately restored to them; and if a dispute arise over this, then let it
be decided in the marches by the judgment of their peers; for tenements in
England according to the law of England, for tenements in Wales according to
the law of Wales, and for tenements in the marches according to the law of the
marches. Welshmen shall do the same to us and ours.

This is the first of three chapters directed towards redressing

wrongs suffered by Welshmen: and the three taken together testify
to the importance attached by the barons to the value of the Welsh
alliance. Restoration is to be made (a) of illegal disseisins effected by
John (chapter 56); (b) of those effected by Henry II. and Richard I.
(chapter 57); and (c) of hostages and charters delivered to John as
pledges of peace (chapter 58).
The present chapter does for Welshmen what the first part of
chapter 52 had already done for Englishmen. The reasons for
treating Welshmen separately were probably twofold, partly for the
sake of emphasis, and partly because some slight differences of
detail were required. “Judgment of peers,” indeed, was applied to
both cases, but for the dispossessed Welshmen, “in marchia per
judicium parium suorum” takes the place of the “per judicium viginti
quinque baronum” provided for Englishmen in like case. The “venue”
was thus apparently fixed in the marchland for all Welshmen’s cases,
although three different kinds of law were to be applied according to
the situation of the property in dispute. This clear indication of the
existence of three distinct bodies of law, one for England, another
for Wales, and a third for the marches, shows that the unifying task
of the common law had not yet been completed. Interesting
questions of a nature analogous to those treated by the branch of
modern jurisprudence known as International Private Law must
constantly have arisen. The “peers” of a Welshman were not
defined; but a court composed of Welsh barons or freeholders was
probably meant.
The final words of the chapter, declaring that Welshmen were to
afford reciprocal redress to John and his subjects, are interesting,
since they imply that Welshmen had, in some cases, successfully
seized lands claimed by Englishmen. Here, as usual, the barons were
mainly interested in securing their own rights.

1040. The words “in Anglia vel in Wallia” are written at the foot of
one of the Cottonian versions, (cf. supra, 195, n.); but their omission
from their proper place is clearly a clerical error, since they appear in
situ in the Articles of the Barons.
 CHAPTER FIFTY-SEVEN.
De omnibus autem illis de quibus aliquis Walensium disseisitus
fuerit vel elongatus sine legali judicio parium suorum per Henricum
regem patrem nostrum vel Ricardum regem fratrem nostrum, que
nos in manu nostra habemus, vel que alii tenent que nos oporteat
warantizare, respectum habebimus usque ad communem terminum
crucesignatorum, illis exceptis de quibus placitum motum fuit vel
inquisicio facta per preceptum nostrum ante suscepcionem crucis
nostre: cum autem redierimus, vel si forte remanserimus a
peregrinacione nostra, statim eis inde plenam justiciam exhibebimus,
secundum leges Walensium et partes predictas.
Further, for all those possessions from which any Welshman has, without the
lawful judgment of his peers, been disseised or removed by King Henry our
father, or King Richard our brother, and which we retain in our hand (or which
are possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant them) we shall have
respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting those things about which a
plea has been raised or an inquest made by our order before we took the cross;
but as soon as we return, (or if perchance we desist from our expedition), we
will immediately grant full justice in accordance with the laws of the Welsh and
in relation to the foresaid regions.

The provisions here made for restoring to Welshmen estates of

which they had been unjustly dispossessed by Henry or Richard are
expressed in terms identical with the similar provisions made in the
latter part of chapter 52 for Englishmen in like case, except for the
last words, “in accordance with the laws of the Welsh in relation to
the aforesaid districts,” indicating the three systems of law referred
to in the previous chapter. No machinery is here specified for
declaring or applying that law; the need for this indeed had been
rendered remote by John’s success before the arbitrators who
determined that a crusader’s privilege should be accorded him.[1041]
The Articles of the Barons had, however, mentioned the procedure
to be adopted; and a comparison of the terms of articles 25 and 44
with those of chapter 57 of the Charter suggests the antithesis
between “per judicium parium suorum in curia regis” for Englishmen
in such cases, and “in marchia per judicium parium suorum” for
Welshmen.

1041. See supra, c. 52.

 CHAPTER FIFTY-EIGHT.
Nos reddemus filium Lewelini statim, et omnes obsides de Wallia,
et cartas que nobis liberate fuerunt in securitatem pacis.
We will immediately give up the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of
Wales, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

The treatment of hostages in general and Welsh hostages in

particular has already been fully illustrated.[1042] The patent and close
rolls of the reign show a constant coming and going of these living
pledges of the peace. A writ of 18th December, 1214, for example,
bade Engelard de Cygony restore three Welsh nobles to Llywelyn.
[1043]
Since then, new hostages, including Llywelyn’s own son, had
been handed over; and charters also had apparently been pledged.
John now promised unconditionally to restore all of these; and the
Welsh Prince must have breathed more freely when this was fulfilled,
allowing him, his son by his side, with a light heart to prepare for the
hostilities against the English Crown, long seen to be inevitable and
now to be resumed in alliance with the disaffected English barons.
The Articles of the Barons had to some extent treated this
question of the Welsh hostages and charters as an open one,
referring its final determination to the arbitration of Stephen Langton
and such others as he might nominate to act with him. The point
had apparently been decided in favour of the Welsh before the
Charter was engrossed in its final form.[1044]

1042. See supra, p. 517.

1043. See supra, p. 520.

 1044. No. 45 of the Articles of the Barons is connected by a rude
bracket with No. 46 (relating to the king of Scotland); and a saving
clause, thus made applicable to both, is added with some
appearance of haste: “nisi aliter esse debeat per cartas quas rex
habet, per judicium archiepiscopi et aliorum quos secum vocare
voluerit.” Cf. supra, 202. So far as related to Scotch affairs, the king’s
caveat found its way, although in an altered form, into Magna Carta.
See c.59.
 CHAPTER FIFTY-NINE.
Nos faciemus Alexandro regi Scottorum de sororibus suis, et
obsidibus reddendis, et libertatibus suis, et jure suo, secundum
formam in qua faciemus aliis baronibus nostris Anglie, nisi aliter esse
debeat per cartas quas habemus de Willelmo patre ipsius, quondam
rege Scottorum; et hoc erit per judicium parium suorum in curia
nostra.
We will do toward Alexander, King of Scots, concerning the return of his
sisters and his hostages, and concerning his franchises, and his right, in the
same manner as we shall do towards our other barons of England, unless it
ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William his
father, formerly King of Scots; and this shall be according to the judgment of his
peers in our court.

A heterogeneous body of forces was drawn into temporary union

by common hatred of John. The barons welcomed allies whether
from Wales or from Scotland; if the three preceding chapters were a
bid for Llywelyn’s support, this one was dictated by a desire to
conciliate Alexander. John was forced to promise to restore to the
king of Scots his sisters and other hostages, together with his
franchises and his “right.” This last word covered Alexander’s claim
to independence and also whatever title he might prove good to
various English fiefs which he claimed to hold under the English
Crown.
Opinions have been, and still are, sharply divided as to whether, or
in what degree, Scotland was subject to feudal overlordship. Of one
fact there can be no doubt; David I. and his successors, kings of
Scotland, had been wont to do fealty and homage to the kings of
England; but this fact has received widely different interpretations.
Such homage, it is argued, was performed in respect of certain
English baronies which happened to belong by hereditary right to
the kings of Scotland, namely, the earldom of Huntingdon, the
isolated position of which enabled the English Crown without danger
to admit the claim, and the counties of Northumberland,
Cumberland, and Westmoreland, the proximity of which to the
border rendered their possession by a Scottish prince a source of
weakness to England.[1045] The terms in which the oath of homage
was taken did not indicate for what fiefs it was sworn—whether for
the English earldoms alone, or for the whole country north of Tweed
as well.
The position of the kings of Scots remained ambiguous in this
respect, until William the Lion was placed at a terrible disadvantage
by his capture at Alnwick in 1174, after supporting the rebellion
against Henry II. To gain his release he ratified the Treaty of Falaise
on 8th December, of that year, by which he agreed in future to hold
all his territories as fiefs of the English Crown. All his tenants in
Scotland were to take a direct oath to Henry; while hostages were
surrendered along with the castles of Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh,
Edinburgh, and Stirling.[1046]
This notable achievement of Henry’s diplomacy was, like other
portions of his life’s work, undone by his successor. Richard,
preparing for his crusade of 1190, sold recklessly every right that
would fetch a price: William bought back the independence of his
ancient kingdom; but this restoration of the relations that had
prevailed previous to 1174, involved a restoration of all the old
ambiguities. When Richard died, William despatched ambassadors to
England, pressing his claims upon the northern counties, promising
to support John’s title in return for their admission, and adding
threats.[1047]
John avoided committing himself to a definite answer until his
position in England was assured; thereafter he commanded William
to do homage unconditionally. The Scots king disregarded the first
summons, but yielded to a second, taking the oath in public on the
summit of the hill of Lincoln, on 21st November, 1200, “reserving
always his own right.”[1048] The saving clause left everything vague as
before.
 In April, 1209, the king of Scots incurred John’s displeasure by
sheltering bishops who had supported the policy of Rome in the
matter of the interdict. William’s only son, Alexander, was demanded
as a hostage, or alternatively three border castles must be delivered
up. After a refusal, the old king gave in on 7th August, 1209.[1049]
Alexander did homage on behalf of his father “for the aforesaid
castles and other lands which he held,” and found sureties for the
payment of 15,000 marks. William’s daughters, Margaret and Isabel
(the two ladies referred to in Magna Carta) became the wards of
John, who had the right to bestow them in marriage—stipulations
which come suspiciously near an admission of feudal vassalage.[1050]
There seems, however, to have been some understanding that one
of them should wed John’s eldest son.[1051] Margaret and Isabel,
though kept virtually as prisoners in Corfe Castle, Dorset, were yet
honourably and kindly treated there. The Close Rolls of the reign
contain several entries (which read strangely enough among the
sterner memorials of John’s diplomacy) containing orders for
supplying them with articles of comfort and luxury. Thus on 6th July,
1213, John, busy as he must have been with affairs of state,
instructed the Mayor of Winchester to despatch in haste for the use
of his niece Eleanor and of the two Scots princesses robes of dark
green (tunics and super-tunics) with capes of cambric and fur of
miniver, together with twenty-three yards of good linen cloth, with
light shoes for summer wear, “and the Mayor is to come himself with
all the above articles to Corfe, there to receive the money for the
cost of the same.”[1052] Margaret and Isabel had no reason to
complain of such treatment, whatever thoughts the Mayor of
Winchester may have had of so liberal an interpretation of his civic
duties.
Meanwhile, events in Scotland had favoured English pretensions.
In the year 1212, William, now in advanced age, although his son
was still a stripling, was compelled by internal troubles to appeal for
aid to John. Cuthred, a claimant for the Scottish throne as a
descendant of Donald Bane MacWilliam, having acquired a
considerable following in Scotland, endeavoured to dethrone King
William; and his attempt seemed likely to succeed, when English
succour was asked and paid for by a Treaty signed at Norham on 7th
February, 1212. By this, William granted to John the right to marry
the young Alexander, then fourteen years of age, “sicut hominem
suum ligium,” to whomsoever he would, at any time within the next
six years, but always "without disparagement"—a phrase already
explained.[1053] William further pledged himself and his son to keep
faith and allegiance to John’s son, Henry, “as their liege lord” against
all mortals.[1054] The young Scottish prince thereafter journeyed
southwards in the train of John, by whom he was knighted on the
4th of March at London. In June an English army entered Scotland;
the pretender was defeated and killed. William had saved his Crown,
but his independence was impaired. Scotland was gradually sinking
into the position of a vassal state. This was recognized at Rome. On
28th October, 1213, Innocent III., among other healing measures
consequent on John’s surrender of his kingdom, ordered the king of
Scotland and his son to show fealty and devotion to John, in terms
similar to those addressed to the English barons.[1055]
William the Lion died at Stirling on 4th December, 1214, and
Alexander was crowned at Scone two days later,[1056] his peaceful
succession being facilitated by the knowledge that he had the
support of John. On 28th April, 1215, the English king, already deep
in his quarrel with the barons, acknowledged receipt of Thomas
Colville and other Scotsmen as hostages.[1057] Such was the position
of affairs when John was brought to bay at Runnymede. The barons
were willing to bid for the alliance of Alexander; yet it was
unnecessary to bid high, since his unsatisfied claims on the northern
counties predisposed him against the English king. The barons,
therefore, did nothing calculated to endanger such hold as England
had over the Scottish Crown. John promised to restore Alexander’s
sisters and other hostages unconditionally, but used words which
committed him on none of the disputed points.[1058] Franchises and
“right” were to be restored only in so far as accorded with the terms
of King William’s “charters” as interpreted by the judgment of the
English barons in the court of the English king.[1059]
The allusion to the Scottish king as one among “our other barons
of England” need not be pressed against Alexander any more than
similar expressions should be pressed against John, whose position
as Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine in no way made England a fief
of the French Crown. In questions affecting his feudal position in
France, John’s peers were the dukes and counts of that country; and
similarly those who had a right to sit in judgment as Alexander’s
peers over his claims to English fiefs were the English earls and
barons. Such a tribunal was not likely to give decisions favourable to
Scots pretensions at the expense of England.[1060]
Alexander, though no party to the treaty at Runnymede, was
willing to extract such benefit from it as he could. Accordingly, on
7th July, 1215, he despatched the Archbishop of St. Andrews and
five laymen to John “concerning our business which we have against
you to be transacted in your court.”[1061] Nothing came of this; and
when the civil war began Alexander invaded England in order to
push his claims. John swore his usual oath, "by God’s teeth," that he
would “chase the little red-haired fox-cub from his hiding holes.”[1062]
Neither Alexander’s participation in the war nor the subsequent
efforts of diplomacy achieved settlement of the questions in dispute.
None of the latent ambiguities had been finally removed when the
relations between the two countries entered on a new phase as a
consequence of the attempts at annexation made by Edward I., “the
hammer of the Scots.”

1045. See Stubbs, Const. Hist., I. 596.

1046. See Ramsay, Angevin Empire, 183–4. In the spring of 1185,

Henry confirmed William’s claim to the Earldom of Huntingdon, and
the Scots king, prior to Christmas, 1186, transferred it to his brother
David. Ibid., 226, n.

1047. See Miss Norgate, John Lackland, 66.

1048. See Stubbs, Const. Hist., I. 596, n., and Norgate, John
Lackland, 73, 78. Cf. the words “salvo jure suo” with the “et jure
suo” of Magna Carta.
 1049. New Rymer, I. 103, where “Northampton” is apparently a
mistake for “Norham.” See Ramsay, Angevin Empire, 421, n.

1050. Ramsay, Ibid., and authorities there cited.

1051. Ramsay, Angevin Empire, 421, and authorities.

1052. Rot. Claus., I. 144, and I. 157. This Eleanor was the sister of
Prince Arthur. The fortunes of war had in 1202 placed both of them
in John’s hands. Arthur disappeared—murdered it was supposed;
Eleanor remained a prisoner for life; the Scots princesses were
virtually her fellow-prisoners for a time in Corfe Castle.

1053. See supra, c. 6.

1054. New Rymer, I. 104. See also W. Coventry, II. 206.

1055. See New Rymer, I. 116.

1056. Ramsay, Angevin Empire, 477, n.

1057. See Rot. Pat., I. 134, and New Rymer, I. 120.

1058. Both ladies, however, remained prisoners after Henry III.’s

accession. Peter de Maulay, constable of Corfe Castle, was, in that
king’s fifth year, credited with sums expended on their behalf. Rot.
Claus., I. 466; see also I. 483. Both found permanent homes in
England—Margaret as wife of Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent
(mentioned in preamble of Magna Carta); Isabel as wife of Roger
Bigod, Earl of Norfolk (one of the Charter’s executors). See Ramsay,
Angevin Empire, 421, and authorities there cited.

1059. This reference to charters was probably intended to cover

(a) the Treaty of Falaise, (b) the agreement of 7th August, 1209,
and (c) the writ of 7th February, 1212, with the other charters to
which it refers. It called itself a charter, and suggested others by the
words hinc et inde.
 1060. No. 46 of the Articles of the Barons (as qualified by the
clause in the bracket) referred the question of Alexander’s “right” in
reference to his father’s charters to the judgment of Langton and his
nominees, for which Magna Carta substituted “judgment of his peers
in our court.”

1061. New Rymer, I. 135.

1062. Matthew Paris, Chron. Maj., II. 642: “Sic fugabimus rubeam
vulpeculam de latibulis suis.”
 CHAPTER SIXTY.
Omnes autem istas consuetudines predictas et libertates quas nos
concessimus in regno nostro tenendas quantum ad nos pertinet erga
nostros, omnes de regno nostro, tam clerici quam laici, observent
quantum ad se pertinet erga suos.
Moreover, all the aforesaid customs and liberties, the observance of which we
have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be
observed by all of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to
them towards their men.

It would have been as impolitic as it was obviously unfair for the

barons, in their capacity of mesne lords, to inflict upon their own
tenants—the men without whose support they would have been
powerless at Runnymede—those very exactions which they
compelled the king to abjure as against themselves. Accordingly, the
benefit of the same “customs and liberties” conceded by John to his
feudal tenants was—in a somewhat perfunctory manner it is true—
extended also to the feudal tenants of all other magnates, whether
cleric or lay. Although the reference to “customs and liberties” was
quite general in its terms, it seems natural to infer that feudal
grievances were chiefly, if not exclusively, intended, since the view of
society indicated is feudal rather than national, and this is quite in
keeping with many other clauses of the Charter.
These considerations suggest that too wide and liberal a view has
sometimes been taken of the scope of this chapter. Coke treated it
as affecting not merely freeholders, but the whole mass of the
people, and as enunciating a doctrine of mutual responsibility
between the king and his subjects. “This is the chief felicity of a
kingdom, when good laws are reciprocally of prince and people (as
is here undertaken) duly observed.”[1063] In this view he has had
many followers, and the present chapter has received undue
emphasis as supporting a democratic interpretation of Magna Carta.
[1064]
It has sometimes been referred to as “the only clause which
affects the whole body of the people.”[1065] The better view is that its
provisions were confined to freeholders.
Even authors who interpret the chapter in this restricted
application are still prone to exaggerate its importance. Two opposite
lines of comment, in favour respectively with historians of two
different schools, seem equally in need of supplement. (1) This
clause is sometimes regarded as springing directly from the barons’
own uncontrolled initiative. Dr. Stubbs takes this view, contrasting its
substance with similar restraints imposed by Henry I. on the barons
by his Charter of Liberties, and emphasizing as specially notable the
fact that the present clause was “adopted by the lords
themselves.”[1066] Such praise is unmerited; the barons had no
option, since the omission of provisions to this effect would have
been a glaring absurdity and a most imprudent act. (2) On the other
hand, credit for the clause, equally unwarranted, has been
sometimes bestowed on John. Dr. Robert Henry says that “this
article, which was highly reasonable, was probably inserted at the
desire of the king.”[1067]
The substance of this chapter appears in the reissues of 1217 and
1225; but its force is there greatly impaired by the addition of a new
clause inconsistent with its spirit, reserving to archbishops, bishops,
abbots, priors, templars, hospitallers, earls, barons, and all other
persons as well ecclesiastical as secular, all the franchises and free
customs they previously had.[1068] The chief object of this was
presumably to make it clear that Magna Carta, while conferring
benefits, took nothing away; but it would naturally be interpreted as
a saving clause in favour of aristocrats in their relations with their
dependants (“erga suos”) as well as with the Crown, thus modifying
the clause which immediately preceded it.

1063. Second Institute, 77.

 1064. Cf. supra, 133–4.

1065. Thomson, Magna Charta, 269, and authorities there cited.

1066. Const. Hist., I. 570. Cf. supra, 139–140.

1067. History of Great Britain, VI. 74. (6th edition, 1823). See also
S. Henshall, History of South Britain, cited by Thomson, Magna
Charta, 268-9.

1068. See c. 46 of 1217.

1069. The words “in perpetuum” are written at the foot of one of
the Cottonian versions. See supra, 195, n.
 CHAPTER SIXTY-ONE.
Cum autem pro Deo, et ad emendacionem regni nostri, et ad
melius sopiendam discordiam inter nos et barones nostros ortam,
hec omnia predicta concesserimus, volentes ea integra et firma
stabilitate in perpetuum[1069] gaudere, facimus et concedimus eis
securitatem subscriptam; videlicet quod barones eligant viginti
quinque barones de regno quos voluerint, qui debeant pro totis
viribus suis observare, tenere, et facere observari, pacem et
libertates quas eis concessimus, et hac presenti carta nostra
confirmavimus, ita scilicet quod, si nos, vel justiciarius noster, vel
ballivi nostri, vel aliquis de ministris nostris, in aliquo erga aliquem
deliquerimus, vel aliquem articulorum pacis aut securitatis
transgressi fuerimus, et delictum ostensum fuerit quatuor baronibus
de predictis viginti quinque baronibus, illi quatuor barones accedant
ad nos vel ad justiciarum nostrum, si fuerimus extra regnum,
proponentes nobis excessum, petent ut excessum illum sine
dilacione faciamus emendari. Et si nos excessum non
emendaverimus, vel, si fuerimus extra regnum justiciarius noster non
emendaverit, infra tempus quadraginta dierum computandum a
tempore quo monstratum fuerit nobis vel justiciario nostro si extra
regnum fuerimus, predicti quatuor barones referant causam illam ad
residuos de viginti quinque baronibus, et illi viginti quinque barones
cum communa tocius terre distringent et gravabunt nos modis
omnibus quibus poterunt, scilicet per capcionem castrorum,
terrarum, possessionum, et aliis modis quibus poterunt, donec fuerit
emendatum secundum arbitrium eorum, salva persona nostra et
regine nostre et liberorum nostrorum; et cum fuerit emendatum
intendent nobis sicut prius fecerunt. Et quicumque voluerit de terra
juret quod ad predicta omnia exequenda parebit mandatis
predictorum viginti quinque baronum, et quod gravabit nos pro
posse suo cum ipsis, et nos publice et libere damus licenciam jurandi
cuilibet qui jurare voluerit, et nulli umquam jurare prohibebimus.
Omnes autem illos de terra qui per se et sponte sua noluerint jurare
viginti quinque baronibus, de distringendo et gravando nos cum eis,
faciemus jurare eosdem de mandato nostro, sicut predictum est. Et
si aliquis de viginti quinque baronibus decesserit, vel a terra
recesserit, vel aliquo alio modo impeditus fuerit, quominus ista
predicta possent exequi, qui residui fuerint de predictis viginti
quinque baronibus eligant alium loco ipsius, pro arbitrio suo, qui
simili modo erit juratus quo et ceteri. In omnibus autem que istis
viginti quinque baronibus committuntur exequenda, si forte ipsi
viginti quinque presentes fuerint, et inter se super re aliqua
discordaverint, vel aliqui ex eis summoniti nolint vel nequeant
interesse, ratum habeatur et firmum quod major pars eorum qui
presentes fuerint providerit, vel preceperit, ac si omnes viginti
quinque in hoc consensissent; et predicti viginti quinque jurent quod
omnia antedicta fideliter observabunt, et pro toto posse suo facient
observari. Et nos nichil impetrabimus ab aliquo, per nos nec per
alium, per quod aliqua istarum concessionum et libertatum revocetur
vel minuatur; et, si aliquid tale impetratum fuerit, irritum sit et inane
et numquam eo utemur per nos nec per alium.
Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom, and for the
better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we
have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in
complete and firm endurance for ever, we give and grant to them the
underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five-and-twenty barons of
the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to
observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have
granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our
justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault
toward anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of the peace or of
this security, and the offence be notified to four barons of the foresaid five-and-
twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of
the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that
transgression corrected without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the
transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall
not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been
intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four
 barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five-and-twenty
barons, and those five-and-twenty barons shall, together with the community of
the whole land, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing
our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has
been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the
persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they
shall resume their old relations towards us. And let whoever in the country
desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five-and twenty barons for the
execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the
utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to every one who
wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid anyone to swear. All those, moreover,
in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to
the twenty-five to help them in constraining and molesting us, we shall by our
command compel the same to swear to the effect foresaid. And if any one of
the five-and-twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be
incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions
being carried out, those of the said twenty-five barons who are left shall choose
another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in
the same way as the others. Further, in all matters the execution of which is
entrusted to these twenty-five barons, if perchance these twenty-five are
present and disagree about anything, or if some of them, after being
summoned, are unwilling or unable to be present, that which the majority of
those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly
as if the whole twenty-five had concurred in this; and the said twenty-five shall
swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be
observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from anyone,
directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might
be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be
void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.

This important chapter stands by itself, providing machinery for

enforcing all that precedes it. It thus forms what modern
jurisprudence would describe as the “sanction” of the whole, but
what was known in the current phrase of its own day as “the form of
security” (forma securitatis ad observandum pacem et libertates).
[1070]
It contains the only executive clause of the Charter, the sole
constitutional machinery provided for enforcing the rights now
defined on parchment, the sole protection against future attempts of
the king to render them of no effect.
 I. The Nature of the “Security” or legal Sanction. The procedure
devised for enforcing the Charter was exceedingly crude: John
conferred upon twenty-five of his most bitter enemies a legal right to
organize rebellion, whenever in their opinion he had broken one of
the provisions of Magna Carta. Violence might be legally used
against him, until he redressed their alleged grievances “to their own
satisfaction” (secundum arbitrium eorum). If it had been possible to
put so violent an expedient in practice, the “sovereignty,” or supreme
power in England, would have been split into two for practical
purposes. While the old monarchy remained theoretically intact,
John would have held the sceptre, still nominally his, only until his
opponents declared that he had broken some part of the Charter,
when, by his own previously-granted mandate, it would pass, along
with wide powers of coercion, to the twenty-five barons forming
what is sometimes described as a Committee of Executors, but
which was rather a Committee of Rebellion.[1071] Instead of using, as
was afterwards done with steadily increasing success, the king’s own
administrative machinery and his own servants to restrain his own
misdeeds, the barons preferred to set up a rival executive of their
own, with wide but ill-defined powers, and connected with the older
executive by no constitutional bonds. So long as a single alleged
grievance remained unredressed, a new administration composed of
John’s political antagonists existed in an attitude of, at best, armed
neutrality, side by side with King John as the representative of the
older system of monarchic administration.
The procedure for redressing grievances was described in some
detail; the wronged party must make known his case to four barons
of the twenty-five, and these would then personally make it known
to the king, and ask redress. John was allowed time to effect this,
but if he refused or delayed, then compulsion might be used. The
Articles of the Barons had left the maximum term of delay
unspecified, merely saying “within a reasonable time to be
determined in the Charter.” The Charter did determine this, naming
forty days. Compulsion might take any form (for example seizure of
castles, lands, and personal estate), except violence against the
person of the king, or against his wife or children. The present
chapter, then, contained the only legal sanction mentioned in the
Charter, and this may be briefly summarized as the delegation by
John to a revolutionary committee of the baronial opposition, of wide
powers of coercion to be used against him.
II. Minor Details of the Scheme. Although the whole expedient
seems utterly chimerical to the modern mind, the opposition leaders
in 1215 evidently thought they had devised a practicable scheme of
government. This is shown by the care with which they elaborated
the procedure to be adopted at different stages and in various
contingencies.
(1) Appointment of the twenty-five executors. The members of the
committee were to be, in the first instance, “elected” (a loose word
already discussed) by the “barons.” The majores barones of chapter
14 would undoubtedly have the controlling voice; but the minores
barones might possibly have taken some share in the appointment.
Vacancies which occurred through death, absence from England, or
any other cause, were to be filled by the method now known as “co-
optation.” The committee, once appointed, would form a close
corporation; no one uncongenial to the majority could gain
admission—an arrangement with a thoroughly oligarchic flavour. The
provision for supplying vacancies caused by death proves that the
scheme was not to be temporary, but to last during John’s lifetime or
longer. Twenty-five magnates seem to have been actually selected.
The writs issued to the Sheriffs on 19th June command the
enforcement of the oath to the twenty-five barons, but do not
mention them by name. Matthew Paris supplies the omission, and
though he does not disclose the source of his information, it is
unlikely that so comprehensive a list could be entirely a work of the
imagination.[1072] They occur in the following order, the earls of
Hertford, Aumâle, Gloucester, Winchester, Hereford, Norfolk, and
Oxford, William Marshall the younger, Robert fitz Walter the elder,
Gilbert de Clare, Eustace de Vesci, Hugh Bigod, William of Mowbray,
William Hardell (Mayor of London), William de Lanvalei, Robert de
Ros, John de Lacy (Constable of Chester), Richard de Perci, John fitz
Robert, William Mallet, Geoffrey de Say, Roger de Mumbezon,
William of Huntingfield, Richard de Muntfitchet, and William of Albini.
[1073]
There are here no churchmen and no members of the moderate
party whose names appear in the preamble. All except two, or at the
most three, of the twenty-five were drawn from those factions of the
baronage who were the declared enemies of John.[1074] It was an
oligarchy of disaffected Crown tenants, whose baronial homogeneity
was only broken by the presence of one representative of other
classes, the Mayor of London. Such a committee was not likely to
use the excessive powers delegated to it by John to further any
other interests than its own. Even Stephen Langton and his fellow-
prelates were soon to discover this, as the two protests issued by
them clearly prove.
(2) A majority of those present to form a quorum. Driven by the
necessities of the case, the barons devised, or stumbled upon, a
peculiarly modern expedient. The presence of every member of the
committee of twenty-five could not reasonably be expected upon
every occasion, while absolute unanimity on questions of delicacy
would be difficult to obtain. It was provided, accordingly, that the
will of the majority of those present should prevail. It would be
inaccurate to say, in modern phraseology, that thirteen formed a
quorum, since the quorum varied with the number of those present.
It is notable that no provision was made for summoning or
constituting meetings of the committee endowed with these
tremendous powers. Room was thus left for packed meetings of one
faction being hurriedly convened and usurping the rights of the
whole body. The precedent thus tentatively introduced for the right
of a majority to act for the whole was followed only timidly and at
long intervals. Still, its appearance in John’s Charter marks a stage in
the advance of the valuable principle of modern politics which
substitutes the “counting of heads for the breaking of them.”
(3) The sub-committee of four. Four of the twenty-five Executors
were to act as a medium of intercourse between aggrieved
individuals and the king, being charged with the duty of hearing
complaints and laying them before John. Such a position would
involve wide discretionary powers; for if the four barons refused to
endorse the justice of the complaint, John also would be in safety to
refuse.[1075]
 (4) Local agents of the twenty-five executors. In each county the
twelve knights, whose original function was to preside at inquiries
into “evil customs,” came to act as the local representatives of the
revolutionary committee, being associated with the sheriff in the
discharge of all his duties and armed with power to constrain him to
carry out the provisions of Magna Carta, very much as the twenty-
five were authorized to constrain the king. In particular, these
knights were charged with the enforcement of the oath of obedience
to the revolutionary committee, and with the confiscation of the
property of all who refused.[1076]
(5) The part to be played by the public. The king authorized his
subjects to side with the executors and against him if he should
violate the Charter, and to assist them in such acts of violence as the
forcible seizure of his castles, lands, and personal estate; for his
general mandate was granted to the twenty-five “cum communa
totius terre,” while licence was “freely and publicly” bestowed on
everyone so disposed to swear obedience to the Executors in all
such acts, and to bring their weight to bear on the king to the best
of their ability. Two aspects of this provision require special
attention: (a) Its relation to allegiance and treason. It was intended
to operate as a provisional release of John’s subjects from their
oaths of fealty and homage, and consequently from the pains and
penalties of the treason laws. John solemnly authorized his subjects,
in certain circumstances, to transfer their allegiance from himself to
the committee of his foes. If they refused, he promised to compel
them; and on 27th June, 1215, writs were actually issued instructing
the seizure of the lands and goods of all who would not swear to
obey the twenty-five.[1077] (b) Communa totius terre. The
“community of the whole land” was thus to afford active help in
subjecting the king to the reign of law; and the phrase has been
pressed into the service of democracy by enthusiasts who seek to
magnify modern conceptions by finding their roots in the past. Few
words of medieval Latin offer a more tempting field to enquirers
than this communa, which, with its English and French equivalents,
holds the key to many problems of constitutional origins. A group of
interesting questions clusters round the three words “borough, guild,
and commune,” and the appearance in Magna Carta of a body
described as a “commune” (communa totius terre) in conjunction
with an oath of obedience to a revolutionary committee suggests an
interesting comparison with the form of civic constitution known in
that age as “the sworn commune.”[1078] A second field of enquiry,
equally alluring, is suggested by the fact that the lower chamber of
the Mother of Parliaments, the English “House of Commons,” was
originally composed of the representatives of the various communes
or communities known as counties and boroughs respectively.
These wider questions are here referred to merely as illustrations
of the difficulties that lurk in the word “commune,” and in the
equally perplexing phrase “commune of the whole land.”[1079] The
mere use of such a phrase cannot be accepted as a proof that the
Charter rests on a broad popular basis.
III. Criticism of the Scheme. The faults of the scheme, whether
viewed from the side of theory or of practice, are obvious. It was a
violent and unnatural measure, full of immediate dangers, and
calculated to exercise a baneful influence on constitutional
development in the future. The fact that Magna Carta provided no
better sanction for its own enforcement than the right of legalized
rebellion has already been discussed as its cardinal defect.[1080]
Instead of preventing the king from inflicting wrongs, it merely
provided forcible measures for the redress of those already
committed, thus adding the crowning evil of civil war to those minor
evils it sought to reform. That the whole scheme was foredoomed to
failure constitutes perhaps its least conspicuous fault in the eyes of
later history. It is instructive to note a few of its other defects in
detail.
(1) The scheme challenged hostility by its want of moderation. It
aimed at reducing the Crown at one blow from the plenitude of
irresponsible tyranny to a position of degrading impotence. On every
vexed political question of the day, John’s authority would have been
superseded by that of twenty-five of the most hostile faction of the
baronage. If the king thought himself aggrieved in anything, he
would require to plead his cause humbly before a tribunal in which
his opponents sat as judges. The scheme was thus repugnant to the
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebooknice.com