The LEARN Act and NCTE
Taking the LEARN bill seriously is important because it offers breakthroughs in a number of areas important to literacy educators and to students. NCTE has worked in alliance with an array of education groups for many months to build a broad consensus for legislation that supports, rather than hinders, best efforts to serve every learner. During difficult but necessary coalition-building work, people of goodwill can find themselves at odds on vital provisions. Although NCTE cannot claim that every element emerged the way we would have written it, we are pleased that LEARN contains elements that improve on past federal legislation regarding literacy, both in content and in funding. As an organization we will continue to advocate for literacy education as LEARN moves forward and as the country approaches the reauthorization of ESEA.
A LEARN bill draft was generated by a small coalition of education organizations which worked with staff from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and staff of the sponsor, Senator Patty Murray, during the Senate pre-introduction process. After the bill was completed, additional organizations were invited to sign a letter to Senator Murray in appreciation of her support of federal funding for comprehensive literacy teaching and learning through LEARN. Among the 23 organizations that signed the letter are the Alliance for Excellent Education, International Reading Association, Knowledge Alliance, Learning Disabilities Association of America, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, National Middle School Association, National PTA, National School Boards Association, and National Writing Project.
How does the bill improve upon past legislation, including Reading First and Striving Readers?
1. The bill is comprehensive. For the first time, the alignment of reading and writing learning is supported from pre-K through secondary school with funding to support each level and the connections among levels. The bill enables through a state literacy plan interactions among different academic levels and support of all of them.
2. The bill defines professional development as job-embedded, ongoing, and high quality. It includes teachers as potential providers of professional development about literacy for teachers and for school leaders.
3. Definitions of essential terms in the bill are carefully altered from prior legislation about literacy. Two illustrative examples are reading, where some compromise was necessary but where substantive change was achieved, and formative assessment, where the definition counters an overemphasis on accountability.
a. Reading
The stem of the definition of reading, which governs all its elements, states: “The term reading means a complex system of deriving meaning from print that requires, in ways that are developmentally, content, and contextually appropriate (bold added), all of the following:” phonemes; accuracy, fluency, and understanding; reading comprehension; active strategies; and engaged and self-directed reader.” In application, for example, the stem restricts teaching of phonemes in secondary school because research shows that teaching of phonemes is most often ineffective in that context. Each time an element in the definition is considered, it must be situated in the developmental stage of the students, the content of the curriculum, and the context of the learning.
In addition, the separate definition of characteristics of effective literacy instruction includes among its points the following:
• encouraging children’s early attempts at reading, writing, and drawing, and talking about the meaning of the reading, writing, and drawing with others
• using a variety of age and developmentally appropriate, high quality materials for reading and writing
• making available and using diverse texts at the reading, development, and interest level of the students
• providing strategies to enhance students’ motivation to read and write
• providing direct and explicit instruction that builds academic vocabulary and strategies and knowledge of text structure for reading different kinds of texts within and across core academic subjects
• providing instruction in the uses of technology and multimedia resources for classroom research and for generating and presenting content and ideas
Those who are concerned that this bill may be a reprise of Reading First should note that features and methods mentioned within the legislation are defined and contextualized in a different way than in Reading First. Further, grave concern about an implementation fiasco regarding prescribed uses of Reading First funding on a federally-endorsed list of texts and materials is thoroughly addressed in another part of the bill.
b. Formative assessment
The definition of formative assessment places it in the hands of the teacher:
Formative assessment means a process that
• is teacher-generated or selected by teachers and students during
instructional learning;
• is embedded within the learning activity and linked directly to the current unit of instruction; and
• provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes.
Rather than adding to the testing burden, this bill affirms that formative assessment contributes to learning—it isn’t just another accountability measure. In addition, LEARN acknowledges that assessment will be done for different purposes, only one being accountability, at different stages of students’ literacy learning. The bill does not conflate assessment and testing and does not require that assessment be testing.
4. Based on a finding stated in the opening of the bill, i.e. “Research shows that writing leads to improved reading achievement, reading leads to better writing performance, and combined instruction leads to improvements in both areas,” the bill includes writing and reading equally. Unlike Reading First or Striving Readers, this bill acknowledges the centrality of writing in literacy development. For the purposes of the bill, the term writing means:
• composing meaning in print or through other media, including technologies, to communicate and to create new knowledge in ways appropriate to the context of the writing and the literacy development stage of the writer;
• composing ideas individually and collaboratively in ways that are appropriate for a variety of purpose, audiences, and occasions;
• choosing vocabulary, tone, genre, and conventions, such as spelling and punctuation, suitable to the purpose, audience, and occasion; and
• revising compositions for clarity of ideas, coherence logical development, and precision of language use.
5. The responsibilities of literacy coaches are clearly defined as supporting teachers in their literacy instruction, not regularly teaching students or doing administrative work. Literacy coaches work with teachers across content areas on instructional strategies that then benefit students through increased literacy learning.
6. The definition of research changes to draw on more kinds of research than stipulated in earlier legislation regarding elementary, middle, and high school federal decision making. The new definition of scientifically valid research is consistent with the definition successfully incorporated in the reauthorization of Head Start and the Higher Education Act and does not systematically exclude qualitative methods.
7. The bill distributes resources across pre-K, K-3, and 4-12 academic levels. At $2.35 billion a year, it allocates 10% to a state literacy body with carefully stipulated members representing the needs of all students, 10% to pre-K, 40% to K-3, and 40% to middle and high school grades. States devise state literacy plans with districts applying for funds according to their specific needs. Proposed funding acknowledges that reading and writing learning are important in K-3 but also in pre-K and in 4-12. Funding is targeted to schools with the most students in poverty.
8. While the bill mentions librarians or library specialists by title only once, the bill acknowledges the importance of librarians and libraries in supporting literacy learning by calling for strengthened coordination among in-school entities and out-of-school agencies, “including public libraries”; using a definition of school leaders that can include school librarians, whose professional development is included in the bill; and implicating librarians as school leaders in the objectives of “providing instruction in uses of print materials and technological resources for research and for generating and presenting content and ideas” and “making available and using diverse texts at the reading, development, and interest level of the students.”
Many policy makers have taken a fresh look at literacy education, and have come to understand that it is much broader and more complex than the cramped view that dominated legislation in an earlier era. The LEARN Act is an important step in a better direction for literacy teachers and learners.
--Barbara Cambridge, Director, NCTE Office in Washington DC and
Kent Williamson, Executive Director, NCTE
A LEARN bill draft was generated by a small coalition of education organizations which worked with staff from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and staff of the sponsor, Senator Patty Murray, during the Senate pre-introduction process. After the bill was completed, additional organizations were invited to sign a letter to Senator Murray in appreciation of her support of federal funding for comprehensive literacy teaching and learning through LEARN. Among the 23 organizations that signed the letter are the Alliance for Excellent Education, International Reading Association, Knowledge Alliance, Learning Disabilities Association of America, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform, National Middle School Association, National PTA, National School Boards Association, and National Writing Project.
How does the bill improve upon past legislation, including Reading First and Striving Readers?
1. The bill is comprehensive. For the first time, the alignment of reading and writing learning is supported from pre-K through secondary school with funding to support each level and the connections among levels. The bill enables through a state literacy plan interactions among different academic levels and support of all of them.
2. The bill defines professional development as job-embedded, ongoing, and high quality. It includes teachers as potential providers of professional development about literacy for teachers and for school leaders.
3. Definitions of essential terms in the bill are carefully altered from prior legislation about literacy. Two illustrative examples are reading, where some compromise was necessary but where substantive change was achieved, and formative assessment, where the definition counters an overemphasis on accountability.
a. Reading
The stem of the definition of reading, which governs all its elements, states: “The term reading means a complex system of deriving meaning from print that requires, in ways that are developmentally, content, and contextually appropriate (bold added), all of the following:” phonemes; accuracy, fluency, and understanding; reading comprehension; active strategies; and engaged and self-directed reader.” In application, for example, the stem restricts teaching of phonemes in secondary school because research shows that teaching of phonemes is most often ineffective in that context. Each time an element in the definition is considered, it must be situated in the developmental stage of the students, the content of the curriculum, and the context of the learning.
In addition, the separate definition of characteristics of effective literacy instruction includes among its points the following:
• encouraging children’s early attempts at reading, writing, and drawing, and talking about the meaning of the reading, writing, and drawing with others
• using a variety of age and developmentally appropriate, high quality materials for reading and writing
• making available and using diverse texts at the reading, development, and interest level of the students
• providing strategies to enhance students’ motivation to read and write
• providing direct and explicit instruction that builds academic vocabulary and strategies and knowledge of text structure for reading different kinds of texts within and across core academic subjects
• providing instruction in the uses of technology and multimedia resources for classroom research and for generating and presenting content and ideas
Those who are concerned that this bill may be a reprise of Reading First should note that features and methods mentioned within the legislation are defined and contextualized in a different way than in Reading First. Further, grave concern about an implementation fiasco regarding prescribed uses of Reading First funding on a federally-endorsed list of texts and materials is thoroughly addressed in another part of the bill.
b. Formative assessment
The definition of formative assessment places it in the hands of the teacher:
Formative assessment means a process that
• is teacher-generated or selected by teachers and students during
instructional learning;
• is embedded within the learning activity and linked directly to the current unit of instruction; and
• provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of intended instructional outcomes.
Rather than adding to the testing burden, this bill affirms that formative assessment contributes to learning—it isn’t just another accountability measure. In addition, LEARN acknowledges that assessment will be done for different purposes, only one being accountability, at different stages of students’ literacy learning. The bill does not conflate assessment and testing and does not require that assessment be testing.
4. Based on a finding stated in the opening of the bill, i.e. “Research shows that writing leads to improved reading achievement, reading leads to better writing performance, and combined instruction leads to improvements in both areas,” the bill includes writing and reading equally. Unlike Reading First or Striving Readers, this bill acknowledges the centrality of writing in literacy development. For the purposes of the bill, the term writing means:
• composing meaning in print or through other media, including technologies, to communicate and to create new knowledge in ways appropriate to the context of the writing and the literacy development stage of the writer;
• composing ideas individually and collaboratively in ways that are appropriate for a variety of purpose, audiences, and occasions;
• choosing vocabulary, tone, genre, and conventions, such as spelling and punctuation, suitable to the purpose, audience, and occasion; and
• revising compositions for clarity of ideas, coherence logical development, and precision of language use.
5. The responsibilities of literacy coaches are clearly defined as supporting teachers in their literacy instruction, not regularly teaching students or doing administrative work. Literacy coaches work with teachers across content areas on instructional strategies that then benefit students through increased literacy learning.
6. The definition of research changes to draw on more kinds of research than stipulated in earlier legislation regarding elementary, middle, and high school federal decision making. The new definition of scientifically valid research is consistent with the definition successfully incorporated in the reauthorization of Head Start and the Higher Education Act and does not systematically exclude qualitative methods.
7. The bill distributes resources across pre-K, K-3, and 4-12 academic levels. At $2.35 billion a year, it allocates 10% to a state literacy body with carefully stipulated members representing the needs of all students, 10% to pre-K, 40% to K-3, and 40% to middle and high school grades. States devise state literacy plans with districts applying for funds according to their specific needs. Proposed funding acknowledges that reading and writing learning are important in K-3 but also in pre-K and in 4-12. Funding is targeted to schools with the most students in poverty.
8. While the bill mentions librarians or library specialists by title only once, the bill acknowledges the importance of librarians and libraries in supporting literacy learning by calling for strengthened coordination among in-school entities and out-of-school agencies, “including public libraries”; using a definition of school leaders that can include school librarians, whose professional development is included in the bill; and implicating librarians as school leaders in the objectives of “providing instruction in uses of print materials and technological resources for research and for generating and presenting content and ideas” and “making available and using diverse texts at the reading, development, and interest level of the students.”
Many policy makers have taken a fresh look at literacy education, and have come to understand that it is much broader and more complex than the cramped view that dominated legislation in an earlier era. The LEARN Act is an important step in a better direction for literacy teachers and learners.
--Barbara Cambridge, Director, NCTE Office in Washington DC and
Kent Williamson, Executive Director, NCTE
Tags: 21st, Act, Advocacy, Learn, Legislation, Literacy, Reading, Writing, century, literacy
Views: 90
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Ohanian on -
By comprehensive, you mean the bill forces "systematic, and explicit instruction" on middle and high school. Will we have "coaches" roaming the halls making sure teachers are on script, as happens now in the primary grades?
LEARN assumes that direct instruction is the only way children become literate, that "The intellectual and linguistic skills necessary for writing and reading must be developed through explicit, intentional, and systematic language activities …" I wonder why the people forming this bill did not heed the intense criticism of Reading First. Have you noticed that Reading First has been declared a failure?
LEARN endorses excessive testing, requiring "diagnostic, formative and summative assessments … at all levels." Do you have any notion of how destructive the testing is in our schools--and now you support a bill that calls for more?
In British Columbia, the Teachers Federation is calling for a moratorium on testing--so that teachers, parents, and politicos can take a breath and hold some conversations. I wish my professional organization had the wisdom to do the same. I can't tell you how disappointed--and disgusted--I am by your collaboration on this. "A better direction for literacy teachers and learners," indeed. For shame!!
-
Permalink Reply by Don Perl on -
I looked over the provisions of this bill, and looked in vain for an educational philosophy which dignified the profession, which placed merit in the decisions that our classroom educators make on a daily basis with the infinite uniqueness of our children. I shuddered at the implementation of "diagnostic, and formative assessments at all levels." Research has shown over and over again that standardized testing does nothing to forward the education of our children. I wondered why no emphasis was placed on the importance of libraries and librarians, and wondered why the one magical word in education, inspiration, was nowhere to be found. And finally, I confess to being very disappointed in NCTE for I have watched this organization go from speaking out strongly against the implementation of high stakes standardized testing to becoming complicit in the undermining of public education. Indeed you have met the enemy and have discovered yourself.
Sincerely,
Don Perl
The Coalition for Better Education
www.thecbe.org
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Krashen on
-
Comment number 1: On testing
I previously wrote:
"LEARN endorses excessive testing, requiring "diagnostic, formative and summative assessments … at all levels." This is an astonishing recommendation at a time when
children are already overwhelmed with tests, when schools are being turned into test-prep academies, and when education is facing severe budget cuts. It also presumes that we do not trust our teachers to evaluate their students."
The NCTE directors respond only by saying that LEARN includes formative assessment.
First, NCTE writes that the bill "affirms that formative assessment contributes to learning" – this is simply a definition of formative assessment, which teachers do all the time. Why do we need a new law to make sure teachers assess their students regularly in a variety of ways?
Second, pointing out that LEARN includes formative assessment does not change the fact that it also insists on: "using age appropriate screening assessments, diagnostic assessments, formative assessments, and summative assessments to identify individual child learning needs, to inform instruction, and to monitor student progress and the effects of instruction over time;" There is no mention of limiting testing, keeping testing to only what is necessary. It is our obligation to limit testing to what is necessary and do no more.
More to come ...
-
Permalink Reply by Priscilla Gutierrez on
-
While NCTE is relieved that the teaching of phonemes will be restricted at the secondary level, I find it deeply troubling that the LEARN Act, much like its NCLB predecessor, insists on systematic, explicit instruction in phonological awareness and phonics decoding as the first two skills to be learned while placing reading comprehension last on the list. Phonological awareness and decoding skills are for many, but not all students part of their reading tool kit that is utilized to construct meaning from print. Profoundly deaf children who cannot access sounds do not utilize phonics decoding nor phonemic awareness when they learn to read and offer proof that these two components are overrated when it comes to literacy development. Comprehension is EVERYTHING in reading; hence, this should be the first item on the list, yet once again it is relegated to last place suggesting that decoding and phonemic awareness precede comprehension development. Literacy development is NOT a linear process. And I fear that once again reading fluency will be defined by the speed with which children can decode rather than the effortlessness with which they construct meaning across a variety of contexts; hence DIBELS will still be considered the standard bearer of early assessment with more intensive, explicit phonics mandated as the "remedy."
Also deeply troubling is the fact that libraries get such short shrift in the act. Student access to a wide variety of engaging literature both in and out of school is key to developing a lifelong love of reading, enhanced writing and vocabulary development, and reading fluency. The act mentions the need for teachers to use a variety of materials when teaching literacy but completely fails to address access to self-selection of reading materials.
Sorry NCTE - in your haste to get a seat at the table you've been thrown scraps along with the rest of us in education...
-
-
Comment 2: Ignoring libraries
I previously posted: "There is no mention of the most important factor in developing literacy: quality school and classroom libraries, and professional librarians in all schools. The Senate bill only mentions "making available and using diverse texts at the reading, development, and interest level of students" and mentions "library media specialists" only once."
As the NCTE directors note, LEARN does indeed mention libraries, but only in passing.
Our first imperative in improving language arts K-12 is NOT producing new standards and tests, and not in insisting on direct instruction (I will comment directly on this later.) Our first imperative is strengthening school libraries in high poverty areas: Children in the deepest levels of poverty have the lowest reading test scores, and also have very little access to books in the home, in school, and in their communities. The school library is usually the only place they have access to books. Study after study confirms that increased access to books results in more reading and more reading results in better literacy development.
Our recent research confirms that poverty is the strongest factor in predicting reading test scores in 40 countries (PIRLS), and that the presence of a school library can do a great deal to counter this effect. We also found that more direct instruction tends to produce lower reading test scores.
I am aware that LEARN intends to target funding to high poverty schools. I am afraid that all this means is that these children will get more tests and more direct instruction.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Poole on
-
I have several questions for those who wrote the LEARN Act and NCTE:
(1) What do lawmakers and NCTE think teachers do all day? Much of what they are describing ALREADY happens everyday across the country.
(2) Have you looked at our test scores on reading and writing? Once you control for poverty, they are actually very good. But this is the key: As Stephen Krashen said, we have huge amounts of poor children in this country. A strategy here, a worksheet there; these are not going to fix the primary reasons why these kids do poorly. For more information on our test scores, see Gerald Bracey's new book "Education Hell."
(3) If students don't do enough quality writing now, what is the reason for this? Could it be that teachers cannot reasonably give large writing assignments when they have 5 classes a day with 30-40 students a piece?
(4) Will this result in more testing? How much money will that cost? If you think that students take these tests seriously, think again. My first-year students complain that their last few years of high school were wasted with weeks of testing each year. They ask me why money is spent on these tests and not on interesting subjects like philosophy, foreign languages, or the arts.
(5) How is it possible that this measure doesn't have significant funding for libraries? How is it possible for NCTE to remain silent on this issue? Is it possible that our notion of reading is limited to classroom textbooks? If so, it is a sad day for American kids, especially those living in poverty.
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph Lucido on
-
As a fifth grade teacher, let me tell you how "formative" assessments have affected my classroom:
1) They are NOT teacher driven or created at all anymore; that's left in the hands of publishers hoping to make billions.
2) They do NOT tell me what I need to know about how my students are doing. Why? Because they are made now to look like our state high stakes test so we can have 'predictable' outcomes. They don't really tell me what my kids can do.
3) They have destroyed nearly every semblance of teacher creativity and necessary flexibilities that are required to teach ever changing student populations.
4) "Systematic" approaches have now become 'direct instruction' for nearly every lesson taught; we have become robotic in what we do in the classroom. The kids are paying a very heavy price for it in terms of a lost, full rounded education.
5) Hours upon hours are now spent analyzing scores at my school, leaving no time for real collaboration (a successful learning/planning strategy in other countries!) with things that might actually help the students.
The GAO just released a report stating that the high stakes testing focus of NCLB is causing damage, just as Reading First has. Wake up! Senator Feingold stated, "This report reaffirms my concern that the No Child Left Behind Law's one-size-fits-all approach and heavy focus on high-stakes testing is causing problems in schools, particularly schools that serve our most disadvantaged students. The study found that problematic teaching practices like teaching to the test and spending more time on test preparation are happening more frequently in high-poverty and high-minority schools, many of which already have less access to high-quality teachers and resources than more affluent schools. "
The message from NCTE is that there will be more flexibility and motivation for kids to read and write.
No way. They are bored out of their minds.
Because the 'formative' tests come from the publishers, all the writing and reading is based around them; there is little to no freedom to be original about anything from the students' perspective. This ideology is a mirage of rhetoric.
We are ruining the education of our students, especially the poorest, with NCLB's 'systematic' implosion of public schools. NCTE's ridiculous stand will not help either.
-
Permalink Reply by Yvonne Siu-Runyan on -
Joe,
Thanks for letting us know about your first-hand experiences with formative tests. What truly bothers me about policies and laws is that the very laws/policies passed to render justice and equity, so often has the direct, opposite effect(s). Or maybe, I am just naive in thinking that the passing of the policies and laws are for justice and equality for all, and not just for the few at the top of the heap, with the rest of us scratching our heads and wondering, "What just happened?"
Yvonne Siu-Runyan
-
-
Comment 3: Direct instruction
"The intellectual and linguistic skills necessary for writing and reading must be developed through explicit, intentional, and systematic language activities …" (From the Senate version of the Learn Act: Note the word MUST)
" …. improving student achievement by establishing adolescent literacy initiatives that provide explicit and systematic instruction in oral language, reading, and writing development across the curriculum" (Purposes section, Senate version of the LEARN Act)
I my original post, I wrote: "
The methods required by LEARN are nearly identical to those promoted by NCLB and Reading First: "… systematic, and explicit instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension."
The Senate bill lists the same areas of instruction that were in the report of the National Reading Panel, which was heavily criticized by some of the most respected scholars in the field. These principles were used by Reading First, which failed every empirical test. LEARN assumes that direct instruction is the only way children become literate, that "The intellectual and linguistic skills necessary for writing and reading must be developed through explicit, intentional, and systematic language activities …" and assumes that there is no contrary view."
In their response, the NCTE directors note that reading involves "all of the following:' phonemes; accuracy, fluency, and understanding; reading comprehension; active strategies; and engaged and self-directed reader.' In application, for example, the stem restricts teaching of phonemes in secondary school because research shows that teaching of phonemes is most often ineffective in that context."
We are also assured that LEARN includes "… direct and explicit instruction that builds academic vocabulary and strategies and knowledge of text structure for reading different kinds of texts within and across core academic subjects."
In other words, we are keeping all the excesses of Reading First, adding direct instruction of vocabulary, text structure, fluency, reading comprehension, reading accuracy, phonics, and strategies, doing it across the curriculum, but at least we won't be teaching phonics in high school. There is no mention of the fact that explicit systematic phonics instruction failed in the early grades, and no mention of the possibility of cutting back to reasonable levels of phonics instruction in the early years. (LEARN also supports phonemic awareness instruction; see Section 4).
Again, it is assumed that direct instruction is the path. This is not presented as a hypothesis but is assumed as an axiom. There is no hint of the possibility that academic vocabulary, knowledge of text structure, fluency, reading comprehension, reading accuracy, most of our knowledge of phonics and the development of reading strategies emerge as the result of reading. Perhaps this is why there is so little mention of actual reading, books and libraries. Yes, as I noted, these things are mentioned, but just barely.
-
Permalink Reply by Judi Moreillon on -
I, too, must register my dismay that The LEARN Act does not highlight the critical importance of access to literature, ideas, and information provided by school and public libraries staffed by professional librarians. In 2005, NCTE adopted a Resolution on Supporting School and Community Libraries: http://ncte.org/positions/statements/supportinglibraries
In the background information for the resolution, it reads: "We recognize that all students need access to school and community libraries that provide 1) full-time, credentialed professionals; 2) access to multimodal resources that reflect multiple perspectives; and 3) opportunities for classroom teachers and school librarians to collaborate."
In the resolution, it reads: "promote policies that ensure access to library resources for all learners..."
The LEARN Act is a policy that must unequivocally state that access to a wide variety of reading materials through libraries facilitated by professional librarians is critical to meeting the literacy needs of 21st century learners and educators.
-
Permalink Reply by Debbie East on -
I, too, am incredulous at the contents of the Learn Act. Literacy learning across the content areas, and within the tool for learning called language, has been debated forever. Most, if not all, of the research shows that access to literacy resources such as libraries, pens, paper, books, speaking, and early experiences in socializing such as preschools and other ways of experiencing life are some of the core components of learning to read.
The Learn Act, as Dr. Krashen has pointed out, does not mention libraries per se or other authentic literacy events and practices. It pushes phonics, drill and skill activities, and along with excursions into writing. These activities tend not to work well with older learners such as middle and high school students. Research across the last 50 years has clearly shown that engagement in authentic literacy events leads increased learning and literate humans. This law does not do this.
Learning is a messy phenomenon. When we learn we are figuring things out for ourselves. I do not see much of this kind of learning going on in schools. The Learn Act shows nothing but explicit instruction extended into secondary schools.
I strongly urge NCTE to recant their position. This is not a bill that I, as a member of NCTE, support. I cannot because the needs of the students come first, not a law that is a reworded NCLB. Being asked to sit at the table is the not the goal. Being able to teach children however they need to be taught at whatever level and age they are (pre-k through adulthood) is the only goal that counts.
When you stated "Many policy makers have taken a fresh look at literacy education, and have come to understand that it is much broader and more complex than the cramped view that dominated legislation in an earlier era." I was surprised. I'm not sure what you call an "earlier era." An earlier era implies a long time past. For me, it was yesterday and it looks like it will be tomorrow, too.
I had hoped that NCTE would not come out in support of this law. This is not a bill that I, as a member of NCTE, support. I cannot because the needs of the students come first, not a law that is a reworded NCLB.
-
Permalink Reply by Marilyn R. Price on
-
Literacy means more than decoding the printed word. Reading comprehension is more than practicing "reading stategies." All the "inferencing skills" in the world won't tell me that the three Ninjas who show up at my doorstep on Halloween night and yell, "Trick or Treat!" want candy, unless I am familiar with the customs of Halloween. Last spring I taught a group of middle schoolers who had been deemed "non proficient" readers. The curriculum required that I conduct "phonics drills," "fluency drills," and use the literature as a vehicle for the students' practicing their "reading strategies."
This was a class in which only one student knew that Abraham Lincoln was one of our presidents. Thus, while they could decode the words, the significance of the little story we read about Lincoln's childhood was lost on them. But I will say that these kids liked to learn new things, and they responded much better to academic content than they did to the rest of the curriculum, which was not particulary interesting for them or for me.
The thing about this bill that really bothers me is that money is attached to it--grants which will encourage an even more intense focus on "how to read." And while I was saddened and appalled by the fact that I had to teach "phonics" to eighth graders, and I felt I could have accomplished much more with a content rich curriculum, the scary thing about this bill is that it could even extend to high school kids. I mourn the loss of an academic curriculum, as this narrow definition of "literacy" takes more and more precedence in the public schools.
When are we going to learn that "Reading" is not an academic subject?
Latest Activity
Badge
© 2012 Created by Emily Nafziger.
