Teaching Literacy Presentation

By Anni Lindenberg and Cinthia Chen

Agenda

Peruse the Accelerated Reading (AR) Website, jot down any noticings on whiteboard, and be ready to share one.(5 minutes)

Quote Walk - In pairs find a quote, comment on it, and discuss. (15 minutes)

Summary of Main Points Presentation

Bumper sticker – the final message you gleaned/take-aways.(10 minutes)

Take 5 minutes

1. Peruse the Accelerated Reading (AR) Website

http://www.renlearn.com/ar/takeaquiz.aspx

2. Jot down any noticings on your whiteboard, and be ready to share one.

Quote Walk (15 minutes)

In pairs find a quote, comment on it, and discuss. Then move to another quote with the same partner or a new partner.

Souto-Manning, M. (2010). Accelerating Reading Inequities in

the Early Years. Language Arts, 88(2), 104-113.

Established mechanisms that separate students based on reading level. The reading program is determined by scores on multiple choice question quizzes and tests. The point value on the MC test then determines the level of the book the child will be reading. Points can be traded for tangible rewards.

“Fantasy, fairness, and friendship—were being replaced by the single F of failure." (Souto-Mannning, 2010, p. 106).

Accelerated Reading (AR)

.

Early interventions based on deficit

frameworks, "lagging behind"

students placed in low-level reading

groups (tracking at a young age)

largely based on cultural, linguistic,

and racial identities.

NCLB mandates,

reading at or above 3rd grade level

before entering 4th

grade.

"Children of color continue to experience language and literacy

practices in their homes and communities that are

not aligned with what counts as literacy in an

educational environment that honors White middle

class practices as the desired norm (Genishi &

Dyson, 2009; Heath, 1983)." (p. 104)

Arguments Against AR

Disregard for reader's cultural worlds and

experiences

Imposition of adult centered time on

children

Teachers mandated to attend Renaissance-

learning trainings: forbid them to read outside their level (censorship), limited

opportunities to praise, could not provide

assistance

Segregating reward systems (quite often

White kids rewarded and AA and Latino children

excluded)

Panoptical Surveillance (Foucault,

1979)

AR limits student choice and controls dialogue between

teacher and students

Disregards teacher expertise (software

makes the assignments and

assumes the role of the teacher)

AR defines reading as solely cognitive and

largely textual (rather than sociopolitical)

AR- incorrect use of Vygotskian terms of scaffolding - ZPD (no

account for sociopolitical dimensions of

children's reading)

Arguments

Against AR

Resistance, Wiggle

Room, and Transformati

on

Teachers, community, parents, and students resistance, working

together to maintain commitment to more equitable

structures

Teacher Critical Inquiry/ Action Research

Critical Literacy and Inquiry Towards Transformation

Local adaptation – teacher hosts class meeting to address student concerns. Though they "had" to use program, discussed how to fit it to their needs.

Problem posing, students deemed practices unfair and unfriendly, saw selves as agents for more equitable spaces: "How could we have more inclusive classroom while using the reading program the school has adopted?" (107)

Critical Literacy and Inquiry Towards Transformation

Students challenged AR's definition of good reading and successful readers.

Petitioned to admin against pull out programs like AR because AR didn't allocate space for friendships (social nature of learning, constructivism).

Negotiated issues of censorship (challenges)

The colors and levels worked to censor and had the following consequences:

negatively affected their desire to read/ diminished

reading motivation

Literate identities defined by a colored dot on a book. These colored dots were on their library cards so they could only check out

that color book. Being told "you aren't good enough to read that yet", meaning had to

pass test by 80%.

Student identities positioned not by

selves

Budget went to purchasing multiple copies of the same books so AR program could be used.

Limited selection in library (thus, books outdated and not keeping up with shift in

student population- demographic changes in the school).

Students couldn't find books in which they

saw themselves.Could only read their book level color, thus couldn't engage in

discussion with peers reading at other levels

books memorized rather than memorable

Student understandings: " Understood various problems associated with AR. Above

all, there was a clear understanding that children from White families of higher

socioeconomic status performed better on AR tests.” (111)

Transformation• Reading together, teaching each other successful strategies,

collaborative learning

• List of interesting books and then checked them out in teacher’s name for the classroom

• "As critical citizens of a classroom community, we decided not to buy into the displays of achievement. We removed our AR points from the hallway displays. Instead, we decided to celebrate the points that we collectively (as a class) achieved. We hosted our own parties, celebrating our own definitions of what counted as reading and the many ways we were developing as readers. This created an atmosphere of collaboration. Students were no longer scurrying to score more than others by reading the most books, taking the most tests, and banking the most points in the shortest possible time." (112)

Involved Families

Parents shared their children didn't feel successful in AR program

Wanted books that represented their children (culturally relevant)

Children designed a survey for their families, creation of a book list, checked books out of local library, then created final list of books to purchase, fundraising ($800), student excitement to arrival of the books

Create tests themselves in AR, parents and families helped design test, 50 new tests added, children pitched the idea to their parents, no teacher letter had to be sent out, media teacher uploaded tests to the system

Campano, G., Honeyford, M. A., Sánchez, L., & Vander Zanden, S. (March 2010). Ends in

themselves: Theorizing the practice of University–school partnering through Horizontalidad.

Language Arts, 87(4), 277-286

Problem: teachers are often "trained" in others' "best practices."  Top-down policy mandates have been the current structure of the last 4 decades emphasizing standardization, high-stakes testing, and remediation

"“Experts” often view their role in school collaborations as a transmission of predetermined knowledge. Following a consensus model, we argue instead for partnerships that value the local expertise of teachers and the promise of cross-institutional cooperation" (Campano, p.279)

Dilemmas:

1. hierarchical institutional contexts, decision-making protocols (top-down)

2. Academic work occurs within a system of evaluation

Solution: Ground up educational system needed that empowers teachers and students. Think differently about the development of university-school partnerships

Horizontalidad

Horizontalidad (Latin American idea): Democratic relationships are more than ideals, everyone deserves to be heard. Grounded in the Argentinian movement in which autonomous neighborhood assembles came together to organize care for the needs of the community.

Fostering collaborations for change

Learning from and with colleagues

Success not a final destination, but ongoing process

Democratic decision-making, multiple subjectivities

Inquiry Groups and Professional Learning Communities

Educational movements that privilege inter-subjective knowledge construction over individual

expertise

BUMPER STICKER

Create a bumper sticker to express a takeaway from today’s session and/or a current belief you have about teaching and learning.

http://www.northernsun.com/Hokey-Pokey-Bumper-Sticker-%285589%29.html