In the introduction, Gallagher caught my attention by placing her definition of Readiacide. The systematic killing of reading. My first question, What does she mean by systematic? After reading this definition I was hoping the book would answer this question for me.
The impression chapter one left with me is that Gallagher does not feel that testing, reading, and standards match each other. In her reflection of the history standards in 10th grade, the book clearly states Gallagher's big 3 topics do not complement each other.
Gallagher then switches gears by saying, “teaching to a test is good, if the test is good” (p.12). What is a good test? I believe she did not clearly answer this question. Gallagher chapter one focuses on skills of the reader but does not support here theory of teaching to the test. As teacher we struggle with assessment and I do not believe that a teacher should teach to a test.
The chapter ends with 16 questions of how to avoid the “Read-i-acide” affect I your classroom. Why not have "steps to avoid" rather than questions. Gallagher also ends with this statement, “A terrible price has been paid when schools value test-takers more that readers”. My dilemma is teachers and the GACE. What do you make of that concept in Georgia ?
My overall all impression is that Gallagher has a tremendous passion for literacy but the first chapter does not fully support the idea of killing reading. I believe that literacy begins at home and with the individual not the teacher. Yes, teachers do have a responsibility to promote literacy and compression but the first chapter sounds like every other book I have read bout improving as a teacher. I hope the rest of the book will change my outlook about reading.
You question and challenge. Good for you! I am glad you are waiting for more evidence. I hope that as Gallagher describes his ideas in remaining chapters, the concept of Readicide as a systematic attack on reading becomes clearer - along with ways to avoid it. I look forward to your continuing blogs!
ReplyDeleteBill, what Mr. Gallagher is trying to say about "teaching to test" is that today in our schools we are teaching only the concept of shallow testing based on standardized test as regimented from NCLB. Becayse our schools main focus is on shallow test they are also only teaching shallow reading (i.e. more fact based reading) and not teaching for deeper understandings. What he suggests is that teachers use performance tasks and teach the bigger ideas versus just facts.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that he makes a good point about how the tests used in Texas, from which we get NCLB, are really flawed. He does a great job at breaking down the data and supporting this claim.
I like your final point about the 16 questions. It would have been better if he had 16 points for avoiding readicide, and hopefully he will answer those questions as the book progresses.
-Jake Quilliams
My response to your question about teachers and the GACE is that I don't really understand it either. I will say though that we obviously need an evaluation system in place to gauge the level of knowledge that someone has in a subject and all of the people that would be taking a GACE are college graduates and there is no way to graduate college without the tools to pass a standardized test. We all had to take the SAT's CPE's, High school graduation tests, GRE to get into Grad school and Regents exam. (Just to name a few) At the same time, some of the content on the GACE II that I took seemed very irrelevent and too broad. (And since I dont believe in naming a problem without at least offering one solution.....) My suggestion open for discussion is that we should instead have to take a content exam to be certified when we are offered a position with a school and specific to the grade and content. Maybe that would cut down on principals moving teachers around so much as well. :)
ReplyDelete