Text Complexity: The Importance of Building the Right Staircase

With the release of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) last year, the topic of text complexity has entered the discourse of classroom teachers across the country. In order to help narrow the achievement gap and prepare students for college and the workplace, there is a national focus on expecting students to read and comprehend texts at increasing levels of complexity. The CCSS requires the reading of text in a "staircase of complexity" and asks students to read and comprehend literature at or above grade level by the end of the students' school year (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA & CCSSO], 2010).A concern associated with the standards is underprepared students entering college and careers. The authors of Appendix A of the CCSS assert that being able to read complex text independently and proficiently is necessary for high achievement in college and careers, as well as numerous life tasks. The document also includes the notion that moving away from complex texts is likely to lead to a "general impoverishment of knowledge, which, because knowledge is intimately linked with reading comprehension ability, will accelerate the decline in the ability to comprehend complex texts and the decline in the richness of text itself" (NGA & CCSSO, 2010, p. 4). Some educational researchers support the idea that students who do not continue to climb the staircase of text complexity will face more challenges as an adult when asked to read in college or the workplace (Adams, 2010).In the following sections, I will share data from a larger ethnographic study (Papola, 2012) that focused on how elementary teachers planned and implemented literacy instruction. The impact of CCSS on the teachers' literacy instruction was strong during the time of the study, with an emphasis on several shifts, including the shift to more complex text. Through the study, it became evident that the teachers equated "complex text" to grade level text for all students for a much larger portion of literacy instruction. This interpretation of text complexity became problematic, as teachers were sometimes uncertain of how to engage all students and help them achieve success with these texts. I will begin by sharing definitions of "text complexity", followed by an overview of the study. Next, I share findings related to how the teachers interpreted text complexity and implemented it within their classrooms. I will conclude with further discussion concerning the best way to support teachers with this shift in literacy instruction.Defining Text ComplexityDefining text complexity is no simple task. The CCSS take a three-part approach to measuring complex text, which includes qualitative, quantitative, and reader/task factors (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). Qualitative factors such as levels of meaning and knowledge demands, and quantitative factors of readability measures, are included as examples in the document. The reader/task considerations in the CCSS include factors such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences. While each of these is expanded upon in Appendix A of the CCSS, one could argue the quantitative factors are given more consideration, particularly because of the wording of Reading Anchor Standard 10 at each grade level. For instance, fourth grade students are expected to, "by the end of the year, read and comprehend literature [informational texts] in the grades 4-5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range." (p.10). If a teacher focuses on the anchor standard, he or she may be more likely to define complex text as text that is at or above a student's grade level. This can be problematic in instruction if teachers are attempting to solve the text complexity issue by expecting students to read texts that are above their grade level when many teachers are still grappling with helping students succeed with text at their grade level (Pearson, in press). …