ABSTRACT

The current context for early reading development is heavily laden with the necessity to conform to timely performance of certain behaviors and an accelerated trajectory toward conventional reading. Such a context is greatly influenced by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). With the mandate that students must be reading by the end of third grade or risk never catching up academically, the intent of NCLB was “to ensure that every student can read at grade level or above … [by] the end of grade 3” (Heath, 2005). Thus, much academic pressure has been placed on the early childhood years, including the push down of elementary curriculum (Genishi & Dyson, 2009) and the implementation of more standardized schooling experiences. The concept of commodifying reading skills and behaviors gained a new meaning

when funding for schools became tied to how students performed on test scores and on the trajectory and speed of their mastery of conventional reading. Schools and districts, especially those with lower tax bases (Kozol, 2005), sought a way of securing such funding, which could quickly go down the drain if a scientifically based (read governmentally defined) reading program was not implemented. Scientifically based reading research, as defined by the federal government,

favors certain companies and practices, thereby fostering the marketization and commodification of reading. According to Reading First, U.S. Department of Education:

Scientifically based reading research (SBRR) uses rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain knowledge about reading development,

reading instruction, and reading difficulties. This type of reading research involves controlled experiments with data analysis and a thorough peer-review process.