Cited by 18Critical Race Theory in EducationReading and Literacy DevelopmentEducational Assessment and Improvement

Why Am I in Reading Intervention? A Dual Analysis of Entry and Exit Criteria

Brooks, Maneka D., Rodela, Katherine C.·2018·The High School Journal

Abstract

High school students' participation in supplementary reading intervention courses shapes their course-taking opportunities. Unfortunately, there is little research that examines criteria that determine whether students are placed in these courses and their possibilities for exit. There is far less research about students' understandings of these entry and exit criteria. These lacunae limit administrator, educator, and researcher knowledge about the role of these criteria in structuring students' educational trajectories. Drawing on participant observations and interviews, this article shares the results of a dual analysis of entry and exit criteria for reading intervention at a comprehensive high school, and student perceptions of these criteria. Findings indicate how shifting criteria, the overreliance on assessments embedded within pre-packaged literacy programs, and the absence of communication with students reproduced inequities in students' access to other electives and choices in their high school trajectories. As a result, this article calls attention to the way in which lack of communication and hidden high-stakes assessments functioned to limit the educational opportunities of the linguistically diverse students of color enrolled in this reading intervention course. In addition, it raises awareness about the necessity for administrators and educators to be critical consumers of assessments embedded within pre-packaged literacy instruction programs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/hsj.2018.0020

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Certain populations within a school may not have functional access to the full school curriculum, including music classes, due to exclusionary scheduling practices.

    “certain populations within a school may not have functional access to the full school curriculum (including music classes) due to exclusionary scheduling practices”

    From Understanding Participation in Secondary Music Classes: A Literature Review (2020) · cites this paper as Brooks & Rodela, 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brooks, M. D., & Rodela, K. C.
Venue
The High School Journal
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2018
Volume
102
Issue
1
Pages
72-93
ISSN
  • 0018-1498 (ISSN-L)
  • 1534-5157
OpenAlex
W2904498597
Cited by
18
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The High School journal/The High school journal (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
high school students, student perceptions, educational equity, students of color, linguistically diverse students, educational trajectories

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review