Leveling: the Shortcomings of a Good Idea

The idea that students should read material that is at their level is a good one. If a text is too easy, the student will not be pushed to the next level and interest in reading could stagnate. If it is too difficult, forcing the student to focus on simple decoding rather than the meaning of the text, interest in reading can be crushed. The problem with leveling, therefore, is not the theory on which leveling is founded, but in its application.

There are a two main problems that I see with the application of leveled reading. The first occurs when levels are strictly adhered despite student needs or interests. In this week's reading, Glaswall and Ford state that, "Readers have the right to be engaged and stimulated and to contribute their thinking to the class community." All to often, however, the students who struggle with reading are provided with predictable and, frankly, boring books that kill enthusiasm. Surely there are books that a struggling child can feasibly read that go beyond "I see the cat, I see the dog, etc." These books do have their place, but they must be supplemented with other reading material and discarded after a time. Paying attention to student interest means not only providing them with interesting books, but also letting them pursue topics and books that interest them. Students should have a say in what they read. If a child has their imagination captured by a book in level D, but is in level C or E, let them read the book! They will still learn from it and their love of reading will be fostered by a text they enjoy. 

One must also consider student needs beyond their level. Glasswall and Ford give the example of a teacher who placed all his lowest readers in the a reading group together without considering the kinds of mistakes they were making or the kinds of instruction they needed. 
"Taylor's oral reading is almost word-perfect, with few errors but poor comprehension. Marita's miscues showed a pattern of using initial letters in words to guess at unknown words, and her attempts at words often resulted in responses that did not make sense in context and sometimes did not sound right in terms of  grammatical structure. Kimber showed a different pattern of problem solving altogether. When she came across a word she did not know, she often predicted from context. As a result, her miscues often made sense and sounded right, but they just didn't 'look right.'" (Glasswell and Ford). 
These students represent entirely different strategies for decoding texts. One uses visual information ("the letters and words. They draw upon their knowledge of phonics as they think about what word looks right"); one uses structural information ("they think about what would sound right (grammatically). They draw upon their knowledge of the spoken language"); and one uses meaningful information ("gained from the picture, sentance context, or story line. They draw upon their background knowledge as they think about what makes sense") (Johnson and Keier, 54). These students would probably be better off in groups of students facing similar challenges as them, even if those readers were on a different level, and kearning alongside them a multitude of strategies for word decoding. 

The second problem with the strict application of reading levels is that it belittles the professionalism and profession of teachers. I understand that the administrators, basal program designers, legislators, and the general populace are concerned about the education of today's youth (and tomorrow's administrators, designers, legislators, etc.). And I agree! Accountability is important and what it means to teach qualitatively is something that should be deeply considered. However, forcing teachers to adhere to strict guidelines is problematic on two levels. It belittles the teacher as a teacher - it shows that they are not trusted to do their job - and it can have a negative impact on their teaching. This is because the teacher will put less of their heart, mind, and soul into teaching if everything is laid out. 
"Commercial materials can contribute to less teacher reflection and a reification of certain reading principles. The design of these materials can contribute to an over-reliance on material and under-utilization of professional judgement… materials become the focus rather than the reader" (Glaswell and Ford, 209). 

 Strict adherence to leveled books can also negatively impact teaching because every moment of instruction is modified by context, and the most successful instruction takes this context into account. This requires the quick judgement of a teacher who is present in the context and aware of its implications, not the theories of a far-off book publisher.
" Leveling systems often ignore that contextual factors play a role in the success of the transaction between the reader and the text. Leveling systems can't assess whether a child is reading in an emotionally safe and comfortable setting or in a high stakes situation" (Glasswell and Ford).

So what to do? 
Leveling books in an excellent idea but, like many excellent ideas, is less successful when taken to the extreme. Do not force teachers to follow prescriptions that ignore the context which surrounds their teaching. Rather, give teachers leveled books as a resource and teach them how to use them! Teach them how to assess not only what level a student is at, but why they are making the mistakes they do and what instruction and texts will push them to the next level. Put the power back in the hands of the teachers, but give them all the help they need.