In response to "A Marxist Reading of Reading Education," a lot of what Patrick Shannon says really hits home with my experiences as a reading teacher. This is especially relevant for those of us who teach at a Reading First school. The entire time I was reading I kept thinking about the infamous Scott Foresman. I don't think Reading First has been an entirely bad experience. I think having a script and all the materials available is really helpful for some, especially first year teachers and alternative certification teachers. I cringe, however, at the thought that experienced teachers who know what they are doing are being asked to follow the script verbatim. Our school district has changed over the last few years in their expectations and strictness for the use of the Scott Foresman reading program. I remember a time two years ago when I taught 3rd grade--at that time we were expected to be using the TE for the same 90 minutes everyday. Basically, the expectation was that if certain people came into your classroom, you would be expected to have the TE open to the page you were supposed to be on based on the Scope and Sequence for that day of the week. If "they" came in during your 90 minutes, you were supposed to be reading from the script. If "they" came in at a different time the TE should still be open but on your desk where it was easily accessible and apparent that you were using it. I remember one day when we had a learning walk (a designated time for "them" to come in) and I had to read from the script while "they" came in. This of course felt so unnatural for me and really wrecked the classroom dialogue.
It seems that if reading instruction is going to be reduced to a commercial reading program, then we don't need to teach teachers how to teach reading. Universities no longer need to offer courses on reading because all that's expected is for teachers to follow a script. (This is of course RIDICULOUS!!!). In addition, why have any reading instruction from real books when kids are going to have to pass a test? Why not just teach kids to read from test-like materials all day long? Afterall, they just have to pass a test, right? (Again, totally RIDICULOUS!!!). I like what Shannon says, "The definition of learning as test scores separates students from the totality of their learning. Reducing teachers and students officially, emotional, cultural, and social attachments to the process of teaching and learning and to each other." Don't we know this already??? And deal with it everyday in the classroom! One of my biggest frustrations as a teacher is that I agree with Shannon that teachers should be more political (and not take so much crap) but at the same time when do we have time to do our job AND be politically active? I know we have unions which help us with some of these things, but it is definitely apparent that we need to be doing much more. The question is HOW???
1 comment:
I totally, totally agree with you. By viewing learning and achievement and progress in quantitative terms, it's acceptable to use a program like that, just like we use TAKS and all kinds of other ridiculous nonsense. There's such a need to prove that schools are successful...I was thinking last night as I ordered a pizza and was delivered the wrong one over an hour later, that if there was any justice in the world, that particular pizza place would be blueprinted. Because it's happened before. But I digress--I think the How should be like this: smaller classes, smaller schools, more comprehensive teacher interviews prior to hiring, less classes per day (we hustle kids around to a new class every 45-50 minutes 9 times a day and wonder why they have ADD), and BETTER PAY.
Post a Comment