Unfortunately, the final chapter of Readicide is kind of a let down. In a nut shell, it's a list of all the problems that NCLB and technology have created for our schools and our students. Obviously, Kelly Gallagher knew what he was up against! The first thing Gallagher points out is that reading scores have gone up in many states in the last several years. However, if you look a little deeper you will discover that this is because many states are lowering their standards for state tests, in a desperate attempt to meet requirements and hold on to funding. This seems absurd, but I can hardly say I'm shocked. Just a few days ago I was speaking with the official CAPT coach at Westhill and she told me that the reading level on the story in the Response to Literature section of the CAPT has decreased every year. In fact, last year the story was only at a seventh grade reading level! So, instead of expecting more from our students just so we don;t lose even more funding? There's something wrong here! Shouldn't the government want to help students succeed not just "pretend" like they are?
Gallagher goes on to point out that the majority of gains in standardized testing have been made in elementary and middle school. As he has pointed out before, it is the high school students who are falling more and more behind and losing their desire to read at an alarming rate. Of course the reason for this is not simply bad schools and bad teaching. Kids spend more and more time watching television or on the Internet, where "deep" reading is not necessary. High school is also the point when many students "check out." They are sick of worksheets, sick of drills, and sick of test prep, and who can blame them? As a teacher, I hate doing these thing too. Just like the kids love to point out, they're boring! However, I constantly feel like I have to do these things. If I don't have my kids practice exactly what will be on the CAPT test, they won't pass, then they won't graduate from high school, and they won't get a good job.... So, we practice for the test. The kids hate it, but they pass. (hopefully!) But what have I really taught them? I certainly haven't taught them to love reading or writing, and I haven't taught them to be problem solvers. Sadly, this is the same problem we all grappled with over the summer. What is the right thing to do?
Thankfully, Gallagher did point to a solution in the last few pages of the book. He explained that although American students typically don't spend twelve hours a day in school, or have the best test scores, the United States is still a scientific and technological "super power." Gallagher (and many studies) have concluded that our nation's ability to remain at the top is really due to our "risk taking nature" and our creativity. Frighteningly enough, it is the creativity that is being removed from our school systems. Just think of all the schools that have cut art, music, and athletic programs to save money for test prep programs. Teachers (myself included) feel like they can't incorporate fun and creative lessons because their administrators will want them to be more correlated to standards and testing. I wonder, along with Gallagher, what will happen to our nation if our government drives the creativity out of our schools? What will we do without secret weapon?
Gallagher ends by explaining that we as teachers need to find a balance. Of course, we need to prepare our students, but can't we do it in a creative way? Shouldn't we be looking for what makes our students tick and find a way to connect that to our lessons? Shouldn't we also give the students the time to explore their other passions (music, art, athletics) instead of constantly pressuring them and overloading them? He points out that Finland has one of the strongest education systems in the world and Finnish students typically get about a half hour of homework a night and the majority of school funding is directed at lower achieving students, there are no gifted programs. Things that make you go hmmmm.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Agreed. Chapter 5 is the most anticlimactic of the book. The whole experience has inspired me to get my hands on a copy of Deeper Reading, also by Gallagher. He really stresses the importance of collaboration; since we only retain approx. 10% of what we read and 70% of what we talk about with others, the kids SHOULD be discussing! Finding strategies that ask students to share their deeper thinking is the challenge. Sometimes I feel like no matter how many times we model discussions, Socratic Seminars, etc. they tend to only share what they have written and that's it.
ReplyDeleteI think Kristin finds Gallagher’s final chapter disappointing because it offers no certain, reliable solution to the problems he has examined. In fact, the last chapter laments the educational mess we’re in as a nation. I worry, like Kristin and Kelly Gallagher, about the draining of creativity in the culture of test prep. In fact, I think that, in addition to the lowering of standards on standardized tests over the last several years, there is another reason that test scores are rising: rigid, drill-and-kill test preparation actually works. It works in raising test scores, as kids become so robotically trained in playing the testing game, memorizing template approaches to what should be complex and nuanced tasks. But there’s the irony; kids become more competent “on paper” while actually learning and appreciating less. And, as Kristin points out, who’s going to love reading and writing if they see it as a test template activity?
ReplyDeleteThere is another whole layer of irony here, too. Students who already appreciate the complexities and beauty of literature (I think of AP seniors I have taught in suburban schools for years) are equipped, simply by virtue of their sophisticated literacy, for whatever standardized English test they meet. We don’t impose a lot of template instruction on those kids because we’re simply not worried about them. So the mindless drill work is pulled out primarily (or only?) for those students who don’t like reading and writing in the first place. Instead of offering them some inspiration, some opportunities to stretch themselves and to discover themselves in literature, we promote the notion that literacy is a dull skill that helps us pass tests. Those deprived of a meaningful education are thus further deprived by the NCLB approach to improving their situation.
All this makes me think about what Readicide suggests about leadership in schools, and I think I see an answer on page 57, where Gallagher calls on us all to “Make sure teachers and administrators are aware of the damage done to adolescents when students’ brains are not stretched by longer, challenging works. Remember Maryanne Wolf’s (2007) warning that all adolescents go through key developmental brain stages and that when they are not stretched in these periods of life their cognitive windows run the risk of shutting down. Be the lead person on your campus and in your district in making sure that curricular decision-makers understand what is at stake – that a short, choppy curriculum can damage our students’ ability to think long after they leave the K-12 school system.” This, of course, leaves us trying to figure out how to be such a “lead person,” but I do like the goal.
Del
Thanks for commenting on mine, Kristin! I shall return the favor...
ReplyDeleteYeah, actually the thing I found most frustrating about Gallagher's explanations / results (or really, the only thing except for "how to grade?") was this bit about all the gains being made in elementary and middle schools.
Simply because, I don't feel we see that in Stamford, so it's hard to relate to / understand his contentions here. Though, it made me think back to my own experiences as a student, and when and where my love of reading was fostered... obviously my parents were a huge factor.
But, I remember reading "Little House on the Prairie" it second grade (I know because we moved around a lot and I remember what school I was in then). I think that was the first book I read (to myself) that I loved - and it was because of how my teacher started us off.
We did all these cool activities involving the time period, including making food (always a good way to get a kid), and then we sat in this big reading circle, following along as she read the first chapter aloud (with emotion and emphasis). Then, she slowly removed herself from it as the days went on, and we had SSR all around the classroom wherever we wanted to curl up and read.
It was great. I get happy thinking about it now...
But I don't know as my students are getting that introduction to the wonders of reading anymore. They sure don't act like it.