In their podcast (adapted to written form), Richard Allington
and P. David Pearson make some excellent points about the problems that result
from what they call “fidelity to a core program” (70). The main program they
focus on is DIBEL, but it is obvious from their conversation that the points
they make could be applies, in varying degrees, to many mandated programs and
basal readers. I identified six main problems they bring up within this
article.
1)
These programs have diverted teachers away from
using actual research-based programs that are known to be effective. For
example, it is mentioned that in Kentucky, teachers were forced to use DIBEL
rather than Reading Recovery. DIBEL has no research showing that it is an
effective diagnostic tool or that it can be used for shaping instruction, and
yet it is required by all. Allington states that, “DIBELS doesn’t accurately
predict reading achievement, yet it sits at the cornerstone of a bottom-up model of reading” (71).
2)
There is a reduction of the amount of time kids
read for meaning. DIBEL “focus(es) on nonsense word production and some kind of
weekly monitoring,” but the problem with this is that many children are fully
capable of reading quickly and accurately without comprehending a thing they
read (Allington, 71). Reading is about making meaning, not about decoding
syllables!
3)
It fosters a reluctance in teachers to “spend
time on rich conversation around textx that engage meaty ideas for young kids
to tackle” (Pearson, 72). Children’s books, as Pearson goes on to point out,
address many significant issues that children often face; the pressure to “keep
up” with a mandated reading program decreases opportunity to discuss such
topics as friendship, betrayal, trust, fairness, honesty, etc.
4)
The core programs do not offer good advice to
teachers. I have witnessed this first-hand. There is a script for the teacher
and a script of what the children should say. But my relatively small amount of
experience has showed me that children will often do the unexpected.
5)
Rigidified and scripted curricula belittle the
professionalism of teachers. Teachers are often not trusted to do their jobs.
Pearson told an anecdote about a person who wondered why institutions of higher
education did not simply prepare teachers by showing them how to use the basal
reader they would need to use in their career. Unfortunately, basal readers
change with disquieting frequency. Pearson argues that, “We need to prepare
folks in a broader way, with more transferrable skills, strategies, and
practices that they can adapt to the materials they encounter” (73). What a
novel idea! Imagine preparing teachers to be flexible and creative professionals.
6)
More institutions and agencies are getting
involved in “the teacher education game”. This means that teaching is being
commodified, that the field is being increasingly dominated by private, for
profit organizations that, in some cases, certify people with virtually no
pedagogical preparation.
The sad, somewhat ironic thing is that the teacher feared by
the “person” in point five, the teacher who is unqualified to teach and should
have their professionalism questioned, is created by exactly the programs that
try to mitigate them. Allington goes so far as to say that, “If beginning
teachers who go into schools where they are expecting to use core programs with
fidelity and are told what to do and how many minutes to teach, all of which is
monitored, they end up three years later as lazy, stupid teachers. The solution
to this is to have supportive school systems that allow teachers to teach and encourage
them (as well as their students) to self-monitor their work.
No comments:
Post a Comment