Daily Archive for May 24th, 2006

Reading instruction instruction

Published
by
JohnL
on 24 May 2006
in News, Reading, Research and Teacher education
. 1 Comment

In a distressing report of a study of the syllabi for classes on the teaching of reading, Kate Walsh, Deborah Glaser, and Danielle Dunne Wilcox of the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) report that people who are likely to be teaching reading in the future are not being taught about the scientific bases for reading instruction.

Walsh et al. studied reading instruction classes of 72 schools of education, with those schools representing five different levels of selectivity in admissions and being about 5% of all schools of education; the sample appears slightly tilted in favor of public institutions and institutions accredited by the most common professional organization in teacher education. They obtained syllabi and textbooks used in 222 classes from those 72 schools and rated the syllabi and texts on the extent to which they reflected the five areas of reading instruction identified by the National Reading Panel (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).

Based on their analysis of syllabi, Walsh et al. reported that (a) few schools of education are teaching prospective teachers about the scientific basis of reading; (b) most individual courses only cover one or a few of the five areas of reading; (c) coverage of the important features of reading is not related to national accreditation; (d) only 16% of classes taught about phonics and fewer than 5% taught about both phonemic awareness and fluency; (e) students are given misinformation such as the superiority of child-centered, discovery learning of reading; (f) most students are taught that alternative methods of teaching reading are of equal value, none better than another; and (g) class activities emphasize entertainment more than rigor. A table shows which schools’ classes met their standards.

Based on their analysis of text books used, Walsh et al. reported that (a) the books provided too little information about the scientific basis of reading and too much misleading and inaccurate information and (b) there is no agreement about the best texts. They list the books by author, title, and date, should a reader want to check them.

Critics of the scientific view of reading will find this report distressing, but for different reasons than I find it distressing. They will say that the criteria for evaluating courses and texts were flawed, that there are unique examples of very good programs that were not included in the sample, and (of course) that the study is the work of a politically motivated group.

In some ways, I shouldn’t find it distressing. It basically confirms my bias that what passes as teacher preparation is mostly pablum. There’s little rigor and even less science in it. In fact, I find it more discouraging than distressing…woe are we. We may never learn to teach effectively.

Download links for (a) the summary, (b) the full report by Walsh et al. or, (c) directly to the NCTQ. Link for more about the NCTQ.

Sphere: Related Content

Not good

Published
by
JohnL
on 24 May 2006
in Administration and News
. 0 Comments

In that same story in the Washington Post by Lori Montgomery about which I wrote in a previous entry, there was an alarming account of mal-eduction. If it’s true, the story deserves much greater play. Here’s the segment of the story that alarmed me:

This spring, Deanwood community activist John Frye pulled his 12-year-old stepdaughter out of Kelly Miller Middle School, which opened in 2004 in Northeast Washington. Frye noticed that the seventh-grader wasn’t doing homework. She said her class didn’t have books.
Frye complained to Principal Robert W. Gill Sr., then went to Kelly Miller to check things out. What he saw appalled him, he said. The teachers were at a training session, leaving children to run wild in the halls.
“It brought tears to my eyes,” Frye said, “to see a whole generation of young black people out of control like that. No supervision. I said, ‘What the hell is going on?’ ”
Gill called the incident unfortunate. “It’s like when you invite somebody over to your house, and the lights go out,” he said, adding that school system administrators quickly agreed to modify the teacher training schedule.

Could there be something missing in this account? Apparently there was no emergency that caused the principal to summon everyone at once, else why would administrators modify the schedule. Since when is it good administrative practice to pull teachers from classrooms for what sounds like in-service without assigning other supervising adults? Was this common practice in DC schools?

Link to Ms. Montgomery’s article.

Sphere: Related Content

Almost got it

Published
by
JohnL
on 24 May 2006
in News
. 0 Comments

Education is important in the current campaign for mayor of the District of Columbia (DC; US), according to a story in the Washington Post by Lori Montgomery. Citing poll data and interviews with citizens, Ms. Montgomery reports that peopl apparently are focusing on improving schools. The focus is not necessarily on the right point, though. The report notes that public outcry over expenditure on a baseball stadium led DC to spend $100 million per year on buildings for schools.

But repairing schoolhouses doesn’t guarantee improvement in the classroom. Cherita Whiting, PTA president at the newly renovated McKinley Technology High School in Eckington, off New York Avenue NE, complains that some teachers don’t enlist families to help their children excel.
“There are kids in McKinley with five F’s on their report cards,” Whiting said. “These kids want to do good. The problem is some teachers do not communicate with the parents.”

There are hints that people are actually concerned about what really matters—students’ actual outcomes—and I hope that someone starts writing about this matter.

Link to Ms. Montgomery’s article.

Sphere: Related Content

Bad Behavior has blocked 390 access attempts in the last 7 days.