As discussed in chapter 2 in this ELA/ELD Framework, text complexity is determined on the basis
of quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the text as well as on knowledge of the reader (including
motivation, prior experiences, and background knowledge) and considerations about the reading task
itself. All children should be provided the opportunity and the appropriate differentiated instruction
that best enables them to interact successfully with complex text. Ample experiences with complex
text that are successful and satisfying contribute to children’s progress in achieving the skills and
knowledge required for college, the workforce, responsible citizenship, and the demands of the 21st
century. Furthermore, they are crucial if children are to attain the capacities of literate individuals and
become broadly literate. (See the overarching goals of ELA/literacy and ELD instruction described in
chapter 2 of this framework.)
In terms of quantitative measures of complexity, suggested ranges of multiple measures of
readability for the grades two and three complexity band recommended by the NGA/CCSSO are
provided in figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3. Associated Ranges from Multiple Measures for the Grades Two and Three Text
Complexity Band
ATOS
(Renaissance
Learning)Degrees of
Reading
Power®Flesch-
KincaidThe Lexile
Framework®Reading
MaturitySourceRater2.75–5.14 42–54 1.98–5.34 420–820 3.53–6.13 0.05–2.48Source
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. n.d. “Supplemental
Information for Appendix A of the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy: New
Research on Text Complexity,” 4. Common Core State Standards Initiative.Quantitative measures provide a first and broad—and sometimes inaccurate—view on text
complexity. Teachers also should examine closely qualitative factors, such as levels of meaning,
structure, language conventionality and clarity, and knowledge demands of the text. Texts that have
multiple levels of meaning, use less familiar structures (such as flashbacks and flashforwards), employ
less common language conventions, and assume rather than provide requisite background knowledge
on a topic typically are more challenging to readers, and therefore are considered more complex text.
Readability formulae cannot provide this information. The complexity of a text also depends upon the
readers’ motivation, knowledge, and experiences and upon what the readers are expected to do with
the text (in other words, the task).
Teachers play a crucial role in ensuring that all students engage meaningfully with and learn from
challenging text. They provide strategically-designed instruction with appropriate levels of scaffolding,
based on students’ needs and as appropriate to the text and task, while always helping children work
toward achieving independence. Some of the teaching practices that illustrate this type of instruction
and scaffolding include leveraging background knowledge; teaching comprehension strategies,
vocabulary, text organization, and language features; focusing discussions on important questions
and ensuring equitable participation; sequencing texts and tasks appropriately; asking children
to reread the same text for different purposes, including to locate evidence for interpretations or
understandings; deploying tools, such as graphic organizers and student-made outlines; and teaching
writing in response to text. Figure 2.10 in chapter 2 of this ELA/ELD Framework provides guidance
for supporting learners’ engagement with complex text, along with considerations that are critical for
ensuring access for ELs.
Grades 2 and 3 Chapter 4 | 291