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.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)