Chapter 5.

The last chapter provides a summary of Readicide. This book does a good job trying to improve reading problems in our schools. One of the ways to improve is te 50/50 approach, this is a way to improve reading involvement in the classroom. I have only one problem with the 50/50 approach. I believe that the teachers must focus on the academic reader only. Many educators will disagree with me but I think no matter what you do as a teacher you will not get may student to be recreational readers.

In closing, we can not make comparison to Finland or any other country. We need to focus on the factors that affect our own students. the American education system needs to come up with their own way to improve literacy and not try to model changes after any other countries.

chapter 4- teaching or over teaching

Teaching or over teaching?  I find it very interesting that the first point of teaching or over teaching in the book is validated by standardize test scores. I do not agree with this point. I think that students should be judged by more than just a test score when it comes to the evaluation teachers. Students should not be evaluated by a raised or drop in percentiles.

In connection to reading comprehension, according to the book the only way to judge a student is by assessment. Does the assessment have to be as standardize test? Can there be variable or choice in the assessment? Can there be a different way to evaluate reading comprehension other that a test? These are questions that will continue to address the topic of education for many years to come.  

Avoiding the Tsunami

In Chapter 3, the book covers "over teaching books". According to the book, this limits readers, creates a barrier for true meaning, and damages recreational reading.   

The only issue I have with this is "Time". With the structure of standards in Georgia schools, an instructor can not over teach anything. If the teacher is spending to much time on one book or subject, it will show in testing. Therefore, I do not see many educators in Georgia over teaching anything. Last, who really says if an instructor is over teaching? Should you only spend 3 days on a book or 7 days on a book? This is a simple question, but in some schools there are time limits set by the standards. These limits set a time frame that one must cover in one school year.

Some schools give teachers a calendar with detailed info, info when their students should be ready for testing on certain subjects.  Therefore, this calendar limits over teaching any subject.

The point I do agree with is, “text based reading damages recreational reading”. But then again, how do you encourage a student to read something that they do not care about. In additions, students will not spend the time if the reading is not on a test?     

3 hours and 28 agenda items later

This week I agree with the contents of chapter two of Readicide. In my first placement, I sat in on two Team meetings and one Content meeting. During the Team meetings, teachers discussed items that the book listed on page 30 and 31. For example, teachers talked about health benefits, attendance policy, and new rules implemented by the assistant principal. I think this meeting would have been a great opportunity to address reading problems in all content classes. I am assuming that there are students at a low reading level some where in the team.

In the Social Studies content area meeting, the only thing discussed were behavior problems and making sure all Social Studies teachers were on the same lesson in order to be ready for the first unit test.  This also was a perfect example of how schools focus more time on certain ares and leave reading as a secondary topic.

Last, I agree also with Readicide that the old excuse of not having enough books can be address by using the Internet. If  80% of 6 to12th graders have a facebook account and there is a computer in every classroom, students can read articles from the Internet. I also think that most kids have access to a computer and the Internet at home or near their home. If the students do not, allow them to access reading from the web in class.

Read-i-acide: the systematic killing of the love of reading

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.

Education

What is your idea of a teacher?