Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the section for this last year would be called The Year of New Initiatives. This
was the year that my colleagues and I tried to keep our heads above water
while navigating the currents of new assessment demands, new report cards,
new changes to our pacing guides, new online textbooks, and new teacher
evaluation systems.
The changes hit like a wave that caused much of our energy to be spent simply
staying afloat, although many of us knew we were also sorely in need of
professional dialogue about effective instruction if we were to keep our teaching
spark alive. We needed a way to feed the part of us that, despite the new
initiatives, continued to question whether we were providing kids with the best
possible reading instruction we could.
As a result of our meetings, a curious thing happened: we not only talked about
the research on effective teaching, and “the six elements of instruction that
every child should experience every day” (Allington & Gabriel, 2012), but we
ended each session with a twist by compiling our thoughts about what we, as
teachers, needed to experience every day in order for this effectiveness to
happen. The following represents our own thinking and learning regarding what
every teacher should experience every day in order to implement effective
reading instruction for all readers, including those who are motivated,
advanced, reluctant, or struggling.
In many schools and districts, guidelines exist regarding the number of minutes
children should spend in a language arts block. Usually, the required
uninterrupted block is longest in the primary grades, and gets a bit shorter in
the upper elementary grades with an added expectation that students will
spend additional time receiving language arts instruction in the form of
integrated lessons in the content areas. This is the guideline and the
expectation, but is this really what always happens?
While the nature of such a set-up may sound as if all needs are being met, we
are still left feeling the need for more time in the language arts block. In fact,
we are actually left grappling with the following questions: Could it be that a
schedule that was designed to provide special programs for all types of special
learners (advanced to remedial) is taking time away from language arts
instruction with some students? Why does our language arts block seem like it
is constantly being whittled away? Why, after all the consideration for matching
students to appropriate teachers and programs, do teachers still feel like they
are constantly losing precious minutes?
We also realized that many times, it is our students with identified learning
needs that are being impacted the most with respect to the issue of time spent
in language arts instruction. While we acknowledged the fact that those
students may need specialized instruction from an expert, we also realized that
in some cases we are still providing that instruction during their designated
language arts time. This often translates to a transition out of the class, a
transition back into the class, and a program being delivered as part of the
language arts block rather than in addition to the language arts block. In
essence, the students who need more uninterrupted time practicing reading are
sometimes getting less, which is something we absolutely cannot continue if we
are truly committed to providing effective reading instruction for all students.
Finally, we realized that in an ideal world, we would raise our voices and
advocate for a two- hour uninterrupted language arts block, every day, from
grades K – 6. Our reasoning stemmed from the simple fact that research has
shown that the amount of reading has a positive impact on reading
development, as does the amount of time students spend practicing (Allington,
2012, Fielding & Pearson, l994; Rasinski, Blachowicz, & Lems, 2006).
Yet in our upper elementary grades, even on a day without any outside
interruptions, students who spend time transitioning from class to class can
easily have a ninety-minute language arts block whittled down to eighty. Even
the best teachers feel rushed trying to fit a demonstration, guided practice,
independent practice and reflection into a reading and writing workshop in
eighty minutes. It goes without saying; teachers need enough time in their
language arts block in order to provide effective reading instruction.
Just this past year, upper grade elementary students I worked with waited
anxiously for the sequel to Because of Mr. Terupt (Buyea, 2011), shared the
classroom library’s two copies of Wonder (Palacio, 2012), and begged for more
of Rick Riordan’s books to be added to the collection. This was just the tip of
the iceberg, because once students started sharing what they were reading
with each other, they were buzzing about what books they wanted to read
next, which authors they were enjoying, and which genres they were exploring.
Teachers need a budget for classroom libraries so that they can continue to add
fuel to the fire that starts to spread when students become part of a reading
community. When students begin choosing books, reading books, hearing
about books, discussing books, recommending books, and finding out about
books soon to be published, it’s like seeing a spark ignite. The way to keep
fanning the spark is to keep the excitement high by adding books during the
school year, when kids want to get their hands on them.
Unfortunately, it seems that in too many instances teachers are given a sum of
money to spend at the end of the year while they order their supplies for the
following school year. I’ve often wondered if this is the most effective way to do
this where reading is concerned, since classrooms are winding down for the end
of the year, teachers are busy with end-of-year responsibilities, and perhaps
most importantly, the books will arrive during the summer when classrooms are
empty and students are gone.
What if teachers were given a sum of money at the beginning of the school
year to spend on classroom libraries as the year went on? How would this
impact a classroom of students anxiously awaiting the publication of the next
Rick Riordan book? How would it impact a classroom of students who had just
discovered a new series that was currently unavailable in the classroom library?
How might such a decision impact a new teacher who has yet to establish a
classroom library at all? And, most importantly, what would it do for students’
motivation by giving them a say in what was ordered for the library as the year
progressed?
In the book Readicide, Gallagher (2009) shares an anecdote about being struck
by the realization that competitive Olympic swimmers not only had hours and
hours of practice, but before they even became Olympic swimmers they had
“access to the pool” (p. 29). He notes the comparison with students’ reading,
pointing out that if we are to put kids in a system that uses high stakes testing
as a way to determine reading achievement, then we had better be giving them
access to “the pool” so that they can practice. He then elaborates by stating
that, “If we want our students to do a lot more reading than they are currently
doing, they need to be immersed in a pool of high-interest reading material”
(Gallagher, 2009, p. 30).
On the surface, it sounded like a process that was designed to keep the focus
on student learning, requiring teachers to analyze students’ initial strengths and
instructional needs, and plan for their growth over the upcoming months. But in
reality, the new system had many components that added another layer of
stress, including the fact that forty percent of a teacher’s evaluation would be
based on students’ demonstrated achievement of these goals.
Donalyn Miller (2009) advocates for the importance of using data such as
student interest surveys, student reflections, and end-of-year student
evaluations that ask students questions about how they have grown as readers.
She sets goals for her students based on the number of books they read over
the course of a year rather than the number of points they raise their fall
assessment scores by. And she helps students meet these goals by spending
her year recommending books to them, reading aloud to them, giving them
choice in their reading, and giving them the time needed to increase their
volume of reading. In essence, she spends the year devoting her time to
creating readers, giving students a wonderfully wide lens through which to view
the subject she is so passionate about.
Unfortunately, the culture of high-stakes testing is here to stay, along with the
pressures it creates for administrators, teachers, and students. Likewise, there
is no doubt that assessment remains an important part of teaching and
learning. But when raising the numbers begins to seem more important in a
teacher’s evaluation than having an ability to motivate students and foster a
love of reading, instruction runs the risk of suffering, as does teacher morale.
Fortunately, despite the fear that not all students will meet the SMART-R goal,
there are still plenty of teachers out there who exhibit the characteristics
needed to put kids on the path to becoming lifelong recreational readers. They
share their enthusiasm for books, put great books in the hands of students, and
create a classroom environment where kids are excited about reading. If our
mission as teachers is to ensure that students will continue to read when they
leave our system, then perhaps a fair teacher evaluation would consider these
characteristics to be as important, if not more important, than simply raising
the numbers on an assessment.
An even more alarming thought occurred when we talked about our students
with diagnosed reading disabilities, some of whom were working in specialized
reading programs as part of the goals of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
It became evident that those students were often giving up even more time to
assessment because they also had to take tests that were a part of the
specialized reading program they were enrolled in. And since these students
were typically the most struggling readers, it became apparent that we were
putting our kids who had the most difficulty through even more rounds of
assessment, taking up more of their instructional time, and fearfully impacting
any joy they may have found in reading.
I’ve often thought about how wonderful it would be if we could apply the same
concept to assessment, allowing teachers the professional capacity to use a
more “miniassessment” approach. The concept would be based on the fact that
students shouldn’t spend an unnecessary amount of time taking tests, but
rather should be required to take only those assessments that give teachers the
explicit information necessary to guide instruction and measure progress.
Testing would take up a smaller portion of the school year, so students would
be able to spend more of their valuable time practicing and applying the skills
they need to become successful readers.
Research has shown the need for students to be given time to read in order to
become successful at it. When discussing the results of the 1998 NAEP Reading
Report Card for the Nation (Donahue et al., 1999), Allington (2012) states that,
“At every age level, reading more pages in school and at home each day was
associated with higher reading scores” (p. 47). This requires that students be
given enough time during the year to be reading in school; we cannot afford to
give up a month of this time to assessment overload. When governments,
states, school districts, schools, and departments work to make decisions
regarding issues of testing, they need to look carefully at the amount of
instructional time that gets impacted with every required test.
In a school year where so many new initiatives were stealing teachers’ time and
energy, the format of the Teachers as Readers group not only ended up
providing the professional development we needed, but it was also responsible
for keeping many of us focused on what was truly important as we sifted
through the flood of requirements brought on by new initiatives at the district,
state, and even federal levels.
As a result of these weekly team meetings, teachers are keenly aware of which
students are mastering material, which students are struggling, and which
students are exceeding expectations. The concept not only allows teachers to
identify students who need
re-teaching,
students who have grasped concepts, and students who need enrichment, but it
also creates an environment where teachers work together to plan and take
responsibility for the success of all students at a particular grade level. As I
attend these meetings, I am always impressed by the focus on data, and how
assessment results are being used to adjust instruction.
However, I am also left wondering how on earth a teacher takes the next step
after identifying students who are struggling. How does the teacher become
skilled at reaching the struggling learner? What “tools” are available to help the
teacher become more of an expert in providing what is needed for a student to
succeed? When do the teachers talk about what kinds of instructional
components need to be in place in order for more students to be successful,
and when do they learn how to implement these components?
As an outside observer, I sometimes wonder if the concept of the CLT runs the
risk of becoming what might be called a CAT (Collaborative Analyzing Team)
because, when teams need to invest so much of their time analyzing student
assessment data, there is often little time left for discussing next steps for
effective instruction. While the assessment data are important for identifying
the strengths and needs of the students, isn’t it still worth asking how we
continue to keep a focus on the “L,” so that our teams go beyond the analysis
of the data and meet the end result of learning how to provide what their
students need?
Compare the importance of these initiatives with those that take place in a
teaching hospital. It may sound strange, but if a loved one needed an expert to
perform a surgical procedure for a health condition, I would want that person to
go to a teaching hospital. Why? According to
Merriam-Webster,
the medical definition of a teaching hospital is, “A hospital that is affiliated with
a medical school and provides the means for medical education to students,
interns, residents, and sometimes postgraduates” (Merriam- Webster,
Incorporated, 2013). In other words, the staff and students at these hospitals
have continuous access to cutting edge research, education and training while
delivering
top-notch
patient care.
on-site
education and training for teachers so that they could deliver expert teaching to
their students? Teachers need meaningful professional development if they are
to be part of collaborative learning teams that remain on the cutting edge of
education, and provide top notch, expert instruction for the students in their
care.
In The Book Whisperer, Donalyn Miller (2009) spends time explaining the
various surveys, reflections, and student evaluations she uses with students in
an effort to let them have input into what it is they need to further develop as
readers. She creates an environment where students are candid with her as
they share their interests, struggles, successes, and goals. With the spring
season and its high stakes testing schedule looming right around the corner, we
decided to at least carve out a moment to ask some of our own students what
might make reading more enjoyable for them in school, and we discovered the
results to be wonderfully insightful.
For example, when we recently asked a group of fourth graders what would
make reading more fun for them in school, a surprising amount of conversation
erupted as everyone seemed to want a voice. One particular class shared many
responses, which were then compiled into a “top ten” list based on what the
students said. The results looked like this:
1. We could read books that were interesting even if they were too hard or too
easy.
2. More books…… WAY more!
3. More comics.
4. More time for reading, and more conferences.
5. The teacher should read the read aloud book longer.
6. Less “Sit at your desk, honey.”
7. We need to share our books, like maybe having partners that we talk to every
time so we can interact about our books.
8. Act out more scenes from the book in reader’s theatre.
9. A more comfortable place to sit! Bean bags or something…. at least something
softer than these plastic chairs!!!
Looking over the list, we were reminded of how many of the items identified by
students were also identified in the text we were reading in our Teachers as
Readers group, as we saw the students speak to issues of time, choice, and
opportunity for sharing. Even the last item that addressed having a comfortable
place to sit brought a smile to our faces as we were reminded of how rarely it is
that we, as teachers, race home at the end of the day to curl up in a stiff plastic
chair to read.
What surprised us the most was that when we had opportunities to ask
students what they thought would make reading more enjoyable for them in
school, they almost always replied with responses that were
research-based.
Students want more choice, more access to a variety of books, more time to
talk about their books, more opportunities to be read to, and more time for
reading, all of which are proven components of effective reading instruction.
As teachers sift through the demands of content curriculum, pacing guides,
reporting instruments, and assessments, they should also be encouraged to
deviate from the agenda once in a while and simply ask the students what
would make reading more fun for them. The input they receive will provide
valuable insight into students’ perceptions of themselves as developing readers.
Students often know what it is they need, and teachers will find it enlightening
when they give them a voice and take their responses to heart.
Conclusion
This was the year of new initiatives, a year when teachers were asked to
navigate many changes in the form of instruction, assessment, textbook
formats, reporting systems, and teacher evaluation. But despite all the
changes, many of us found ourselves wanting, even needing, a professional
development opportunity such as the one we received from our Teachers as
Readers group. It offered us a chance to step back and look at the research on
what is truly important for all students when providing the best possible
instruction in reading.
Maybe next year will go down in my mental scrapbook as The Year That Change
Made Sense, where we would find a way to put more uninterrupted time in our
schedules, cut back on the number of assessments given, have access to funds
for classroom libraries, and find a way to consider student motivation and a
teacher’s passion for creating lifelong readers as important factors in an
evaluation.
Maybe we would spend less time collecting, entering, and analyzing data and
more time engaged in professional learning as we work toward becoming more
expert teachers.
Maybe we would focus less on raising the numbers on our assessments and
focus more on the joy we find in teaching and instilling that joy in our students.
I do believe that just as students seem to know what they need in order to
learn, teachers seem to know what they need in order to teach. We just need
to raise our voices, speak to what’s best for kids, and stay true to what really
matters in effective reading instruction.
About the author
Donna Mecca is a reading teacher at Armstrong Elementary School in Fairfax
County, Virginia. She received her B.A. in Special Education from Hood College
and her M.Ed. in Reading from Towson State University. She is interested in
finding ways to motivate reluctant readers, and is an advocate for what both
students and teachers need in order to make reading instruction effective and
fun.
References
References
Click the "References" link above to hide these references.
Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998
reading report card for the nation and the states. (NCES 1999; 500).
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you
can do about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Rasinski, T., Blachowicz, C., & Lems, K. (2006). Fluency instruction: Research-
basedbest practices. New York: Guilford.
Donna Mecca (2016)