How can we (we three at my school) make an impact on our students' reading levels? Well, with improbable funding, we put our heads together (with lots of help from Barb). Here's a look at some of the things we came up with:
1. An advertising campaign with four segments.
A. Presentation to the faculty on how improving the teaching of reading will help classroom teachers.
B. Student-friendly posters on reading for the hallways.
C. Posters for each subject area faculty workroom on Top 12 Things I Bet You Didn't Know About
Reading.
D. Videos shown on school's televisions about reading.
2. A survey (either paper or with Survey Monkey) to determine teachers' feelings on reading.
3. Analysis of survey data with a possible second survey to "tweak" feelings on reading.
4. Begin working with "at-risk" seniors during advisement times.
Will this help? We don't know, but we hope it's a start. Once we get things actually going, we will report. It just feels so good to feel that we WILL make a difference. And those in middle schools, maybe you would like to try this at your school?
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Chapter 1 of When Kids Can't Read: What Teachers Can Do by Kylene Beers
I love Kylene. I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking with her over the past several years as I've attended workshops, meetings, and conferences. Past president of NCTE and a middle school teacher (and author), Kylene is down-to-earth.
This is an evaluation of Chapter 1: A Defining Moment. As I have time, I would love to complete evaluations on every chapter in the book, but alas, "time is fleeting" as the poet says.
I was hooked from the very start. She writes like she's talking with me over a cup of coffee (with coffee cake!) Her expectations weren't to discover that kids can't read--of course they can!--since she had plans of teaching AP literature to brilliant students. (Sound familiar? I thought.) However, as fate had it, Kylene's first teaching job was in a middle school in Houston, TX. The first shock came when she discovered that not all students liked reading! (Blasphemy, I thought.) Second shock: some students couldn't read. How was this possible? Then came the conference with George's parents (how I missed having one of these my first years of teaching must be grace) wanting to know why their son had trouble reading. The memory of that event lives with her today--the humiliation, the realization that she did not know what to do, how she failed him by not helping him.
Kylene acknowledges that these kids know they can't read, are tired of being shown as "illiterate," and tune out of school and life as a result. She also acknowledges that most of them attend school, show up for class--which is pretty brave if you look at it. If I had to stand up in front of a class and teach French (a language of which I know less than a dozen words), I would fail. But at least I would have the tools (such as reading and research) to try to get it right. These kids don't have these tools. It's like they've been told to build a house but have been given no instruments to nail, saw, or measure.
She ended the first chapter with a "Mea culpa" moment. And with two critical answers to why adolescents struggle with reading: 1) There is no one cause (or solution) in dealing with this problem--students are different. 2) There are answers--and the rest of the book offers help with them.
I can't wait to have time to read Chapter 2!
This is an evaluation of Chapter 1: A Defining Moment. As I have time, I would love to complete evaluations on every chapter in the book, but alas, "time is fleeting" as the poet says.
I was hooked from the very start. She writes like she's talking with me over a cup of coffee (with coffee cake!) Her expectations weren't to discover that kids can't read--of course they can!--since she had plans of teaching AP literature to brilliant students. (Sound familiar? I thought.) However, as fate had it, Kylene's first teaching job was in a middle school in Houston, TX. The first shock came when she discovered that not all students liked reading! (Blasphemy, I thought.) Second shock: some students couldn't read. How was this possible? Then came the conference with George's parents (how I missed having one of these my first years of teaching must be grace) wanting to know why their son had trouble reading. The memory of that event lives with her today--the humiliation, the realization that she did not know what to do, how she failed him by not helping him.
Kylene acknowledges that these kids know they can't read, are tired of being shown as "illiterate," and tune out of school and life as a result. She also acknowledges that most of them attend school, show up for class--which is pretty brave if you look at it. If I had to stand up in front of a class and teach French (a language of which I know less than a dozen words), I would fail. But at least I would have the tools (such as reading and research) to try to get it right. These kids don't have these tools. It's like they've been told to build a house but have been given no instruments to nail, saw, or measure.
She ended the first chapter with a "Mea culpa" moment. And with two critical answers to why adolescents struggle with reading: 1) There is no one cause (or solution) in dealing with this problem--students are different. 2) There are answers--and the rest of the book offers help with them.
I can't wait to have time to read Chapter 2!
The 90% Reading Goal
Thank you, Judy McPherson, for lending me this book. Although it took me a little while to find time to read it, it was worth it!
Even before NCLB, this district in Washington decided to set a goal that 90% of their 3rd graders would read on grade level. As anyone in elementary knows, this means a total commitment of K-3 teachers! Research shows that prevention/intervention in the early grades is key to a student's future success. Waiting after the age of nine means that over 75% of those who struggle will never become strong readers. So how did they do it? (And they admitted that not all their third graders read on grade level but most of the elementary schools have achieved that goal--as of the writing of the book, the district was up to 71%)
Probably the top reason for "success" was total commitment from the board and the staff of the thirteen elementary schools in the district. They decided that achieving grade level reading in K-3 was more important than the agenda of social, athletic, and employee. They did not prescribe HOW teachers were to make the 90% goal, they were just told to do it--everything was based on results. they contracted with NWEA test banks to have a solid evaluation system. And, although it must have been frightening to the K-3 teachers, the board took responsibility also by saying that anyone (board to principal) who would not work to create teams to accomplish the goal should step aside and allow someone else to take their place. Schools were given the freedom to cut other curriculum, make changes in staff, and to bring in various approaches to teaching reading in the classroom. Two programs were adopted; each school chose the one they wanted. CORE (Consortium on Reading Excellence) offers a program that offered results: 85%-90% of most children can read at or above grade level by the end of third grade using their process.
I also liked what the book said about the "other" cores--math, science, social studies. All of these need solid reading to excel, so why shouldn't we give them this skill before setting them loose on the content areas? They did some other cool things such as getting parents and community involved. And the Reading Foundation was created. Businesses were encouraged to help support the program. Advice is given to college programs. "How you can do this in your school district" was also addressed.....
BUT...
Of course I have a "but." I would have liked it better if the report was from classroom teachers rather than from board members. Sure, teachers got to choose measurements and methods, but whose rear ends were really on the line? I didn't see what happened to the teachers whose students did not meet the goal....did I miss that?
Finally, according to the book, it isn't the socioeconomics that is the key--it is the amount and quality of literacy that a student experiences BEFORE entering kindergarten. My personal favorite part is in Appendix F: Decoding Language: Whole Language for Meaning, Phonetics, and Phonological Awareness.
Note:
From page 117:
"A criterion-referenced test is designed to test student progress toward understanding and applying specifically taught concepts. The reporting format uses the level of learned information or skill as the primary comparative basis.
"A norm-referenced test is designed to measure differences among individuals composing the group. Those reports use other student scores as the primary basis of comparison. An important design criteria is the selection of questions which highlight differences among students. Because fixed external standards are inherently inconsistent with norm-reference methodology, statistical reports mask whether a third-grader's reading level is so low that it will interfere with the learning of academic content."
They prefer the criterion-referenced test.
Even before NCLB, this district in Washington decided to set a goal that 90% of their 3rd graders would read on grade level. As anyone in elementary knows, this means a total commitment of K-3 teachers! Research shows that prevention/intervention in the early grades is key to a student's future success. Waiting after the age of nine means that over 75% of those who struggle will never become strong readers. So how did they do it? (And they admitted that not all their third graders read on grade level but most of the elementary schools have achieved that goal--as of the writing of the book, the district was up to 71%)
Probably the top reason for "success" was total commitment from the board and the staff of the thirteen elementary schools in the district. They decided that achieving grade level reading in K-3 was more important than the agenda of social, athletic, and employee. They did not prescribe HOW teachers were to make the 90% goal, they were just told to do it--everything was based on results. they contracted with NWEA test banks to have a solid evaluation system. And, although it must have been frightening to the K-3 teachers, the board took responsibility also by saying that anyone (board to principal) who would not work to create teams to accomplish the goal should step aside and allow someone else to take their place. Schools were given the freedom to cut other curriculum, make changes in staff, and to bring in various approaches to teaching reading in the classroom. Two programs were adopted; each school chose the one they wanted. CORE (Consortium on Reading Excellence) offers a program that offered results: 85%-90% of most children can read at or above grade level by the end of third grade using their process.
I also liked what the book said about the "other" cores--math, science, social studies. All of these need solid reading to excel, so why shouldn't we give them this skill before setting them loose on the content areas? They did some other cool things such as getting parents and community involved. And the Reading Foundation was created. Businesses were encouraged to help support the program. Advice is given to college programs. "How you can do this in your school district" was also addressed.....
BUT...
Of course I have a "but." I would have liked it better if the report was from classroom teachers rather than from board members. Sure, teachers got to choose measurements and methods, but whose rear ends were really on the line? I didn't see what happened to the teachers whose students did not meet the goal....did I miss that?
Finally, according to the book, it isn't the socioeconomics that is the key--it is the amount and quality of literacy that a student experiences BEFORE entering kindergarten. My personal favorite part is in Appendix F: Decoding Language: Whole Language for Meaning, Phonetics, and Phonological Awareness.
Note:
From page 117:
"A criterion-referenced test is designed to test student progress toward understanding and applying specifically taught concepts. The reporting format uses the level of learned information or skill as the primary comparative basis.
"A norm-referenced test is designed to measure differences among individuals composing the group. Those reports use other student scores as the primary basis of comparison. An important design criteria is the selection of questions which highlight differences among students. Because fixed external standards are inherently inconsistent with norm-reference methodology, statistical reports mask whether a third-grader's reading level is so low that it will interfere with the learning of academic content."
They prefer the criterion-referenced test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)