"if we trust our students to teach us about what mat- ters in reading practices, and if we trust researchers (including classroom teachers) to study and learn from our efforts at change, we can build a professional community of practice that better serves our purposes in education" Throughout all of my pedagogy classes, there is always a reminder of just how collaborative the field of education is. Whether that be between teacher and student, student and student, teacher and administrator, and everything in-between. It is important to realize you are on a team and everyone wants these young learners to succeed.

"to support this kind of reading and there- fore want to dismiss or exclude it from classroom life. Perhaps we dismiss as unimportant or not lit- eracy what we don’t recognize as “just right” reading (unintended consequence 11)" This reminds me of the debate teachers used to have in classrooms I was in growing uo about comic books. I see how fans of this type of literature are motivated to learn through this medium. However, I understand also that teachers do not want students to be relying to heavily on the pictures presented to them. This quote, as I understand it, would permit students' use of comic books, but supplemented with a more word dense text.

" ZPD is not just a single level of challenge but a range of levels that might require different forms of scaffolding. If all you, as a teacher, can offer as a scaffold is a formulaic DRA, then the text-to- reader match is crucial. If you, as a teacher, can offer a range of different levels of scaffolding support in response to the challenges facing the student, then the level of the challenge is important to consider in selecting the scaffolding procedures but not so much in selecting the text" In almost all literature presented in this class and related courses, ZPD and scaffolding is always at least mentioned, if not fully explained. This is surprising, as in high school Piaget was presented as much more important and relevant than Vygotsky. It is also interesting how delicate and variable scaffolding is But this make sense as previously mentioned, all students are different.

"Although serious questions have been raised about the validity of these instruments and their focus on generating numbers that level students to texts rather than appreciating the strategies students are using (e.g., Clay, 2001; K. Goodman, 1969), the practices associated with leveling are at the center of classroom teaching of reading in many schools and classrooms." The fact that a practice that has relatively little research made it so far into so many classrooms make me question the validity of many normal/common classroom procedures we use today. What other examples of this unsupported strategies do we see in other subjects? Is the way we teach math truly the best way, or was my dad's way he was taught better?

"she also raised serious questions around the consensus view on leveling of texts with attention to vocabulary con- trol and recommendations for organizing (i.e., group- ing) students for instruction. In a move reminiscent of President Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings regard- ing the influence of the military-industrial complex on national policy (Giroux, 2015), Chall went on to raise questions about the fact that the senior author teams on the most prominent basal programs were the same people in leadership roles in interpreting the research on the teaching of reading"

This is a super interesting callback to history in this context of comparing it to the topic at hand.

"I understand that in the world of literacy teaching, research, and teacher preparation—where almost every decision we make is complicated by a consideration of “It depends”—we are always trying to work toward consensus around our practices" Every child, every educator, and every classroom is different. This concept of a public reading level chart is something I am familiar with, so it is surprising how taken aback this author is.