Showing posts with label NCLB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NCLB. Show all posts

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Balancing Accelerated Reading with Readers Choices in one Classroom

In November of 2010, the journal Language Arts published the insights of Mariana Souto-Manning as she, along with her class of second graders found balance and acceptance of the AR program used in their school.

It is important to note that in the era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) every student should read at or above grade level by the end of third grade.  Hence, funding for schools is tied to students’ test performance.  One way to test students regularly is to encourage school wide reading, such as the Accelerated Reading (AR) program.  AR is a computer software program that makes reading assignments based on multiple-choice tests.  It limits students reading choices and disregards teachers expertise.  Implementing AR in kindergarten and grades one and two is meant to be a form of early intervention.  The goal is to accelerate literacy in the early years in an attempt to erase perceived deficiencies that some children bring with them as they enter into school.  

Schools that use the AR program assign points to students based on their rate of accuracy (test scores) in combination with the level of book read.  Accumulated points can be turned in for tangible rewards.  

Problems with AR are that, as noted above, it includes a lack of choice in book selection.  It also disregards readers background knowledge and interests, and does not encourage collective reading and/or discussions.   

Unfortunately, with the adoption of NCLB, children’s learning is constantly being monitored by their teachers.  This leaves little room for a teacher to creatively teach or for students to “play” as a form of learning. 

Ms. Souto-Manning was told by her administrators that she had to use AR.  The year prior to this she had been with the same group of students.  She looped with them as their teacher hoping to build on the previous year experience of creating a culture of inquiry in their classroom.  Together, teacher and students brainstormed to engage in critical action research forming an inquiry of how they could make AR serve their needs better.  The students noted that they were segregated by colors(decided by their AR scores) on their library cards.  They were only allowed to check out certain books based on their AR level, and were actually discouraged by the media specialists when they wanted to check out different, more interesting books.  The color coding worked to censor student choices and discouraged reading motivation.  Also, even if a student read a book beyond his level, he would not be able to receive test points for it.  Students started identifying themselves as the color-coded readers they were as noted on their library cards.  In addition, because peers may not be labeled the same color, they weren’t necessarily able to read, then discuss, the same books.  ‘Reading was reduced to a textual, cognitive process that was striped of it’s sociopolitical aspects.’  Other problems the students noted were that the AR book choices were not plentiful enough to include all their varied interests.  Nor were there many children of color represented in the texts.  

Ms. Souto-Manning’s class worked together and fund raised, earning $800.  They surveyed their families and came up with a list of books they believed would more authentically represent their class make up.  Books were purchased and then the Media Specialist was consulted and these new books were added to the AR lists…with parent volunteers using websites with details on how to write appropriate AR quizzes.  The Media Specialist was able to add these new books to the schools pool of resources.  

The class decided to stop the AR reward system and instead work as a class towards points and then reward the whole rather than individuals for efforts.  To overcome the “you can only check out your color coded AR books in the library”, Ms. Souto-Manning had her students generate a weekly list and she would personally check out books from the school library to have in her classroom.

Ms. Souto-Manning was resourceful with her students.  The lesson she taught them, in my opinion, empowered her students to make take a system they had to use and make it better for all.  The community of learners she started to grow as first graders blossomed into capable second graders who made a difference in their school community.  

Reading needs to make meaning to students.  Students who have more book choice options to choose from, book choices that reflect their interests and book choices in which they can see themselves, they make connections that will propel them even farther in their learning.  

~ltk


Souto-Manning, M.  (2010) . Accelerating Reading Inequalities in the Early Years . Language Arts, 88 (2), 104-113. 



4 of 5

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Testing. A Necessary Evil?

Testing.  A necessary evil?  Achievement...what is it, really?  How does one measure it and, can it authentically be measured?  These are questions that I am trying to define this semester as I study to become a classroom teacher.  
Standardized testing has been in place for a long, long time.  Not long ago, standardized tests were just one of many tests given to students to measure their abilities.  

As adults, we are tested daily, and in many ways.  Did you get up for work and arrive there at a certain time?  Did you care for or feed any children or pets before you left the house?  If you have children, did you make them a healthy lunch or make sure they have money to buy lunch?  Did you get them to school, or watch them catch the bus?  Did you follow the traffic laws on your own way to work, or to run errands?  Are you wearing appropriate clothes? Are you using appropriate language?  The “tests” we go through are non-stop.  Each “test” tells a tiny little bit about what makes us who we are.  

If I get up late one day and arrive late to where I need to be, most around me would chalk it up to I’m just having an “off” day.  One messed up “test” does not define all of me.  And yet, in our schools...one test can mean a lot.  

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), created in 2001, requires states to develop assessments in basic skills.  In order for schools to receive federal funding, they must give these assessments to all students at selected grade levels.  AND, annual improvement must be shown. 

The assessments given in Indiana, are the ISTEP tests.  ISTEP is given in grades 3-9 each spring.   In grade 10, students take the ISTEP and a Graduation Qualifying Exam.  If students pass those tests, they will be able to graduate from high school upon finishing up their required credits.  If they do not pass the Graduation Qualifying Exam, they would be placed in remedial classes until they pass.  Actually, at any grade level students may be placed in remedial classes based on their one test score.  

NCLB creates high stakes testing.  High stakes tests do NOT mean the characteristics of the test are high stakes, but rather that the consequences placed on the outcome are high stakes.  

A school that receives passing test scores is eligible for federal funding or specific grants.  

As an educator, I know there is more that makes up Timmy than what one test tells.  But to policy makers, if Timmy doesn’t get a certain passing score, or show improvement, he may be retained.  Possibly, I could get fired as well, based on Timmy’s score.  (More than likely though, based on the overall scores of my class.)  And if I get fired based on my student’s scores, good luck to me in getting re-hired else where.  I am expected to teach material that is or may be on the tests...not necessarily things to enhance my student's lives, or make them richer thinkers.  Yet, I know that all students are NOT created equally!  Different techniques for learning work for different students.  Tests can’t always measure, AUTHENTICALLY, what a person/student knows or needs to know!  For example, I can bake a meal from scratch, make Halloween costumes by reading a pattern, and administer shots to my diabetic cat two times a day, and yet there isn’t a test I can think of that would allow me to shine in those areas of my interests and abilities.  

Studies have shown that when levels of teaching to the test increase, the quality in level of instruction goes down.  Principals are walking that line between enforcing policy makers policies and allowing teachers the freedom to teach in their classrooms.  Parents need to take note of what is happening in schools.  It is natural as a parent to want to trust in the system that has worked for so long.  But, the decisions being made in schools are really being made by policy makers removed from getting to know your child.  Parents and teachers need to work together.  Principals and teachers need to be supported by parents.  Parents need to connect with their policy makers.  A hands-off approach will not fix what is ailing in today’s education system.  

We may be creating a majority of students who can take tests, but intellectually we are not stimulating our children.  Future policy makers won’t be armed with creative abilities, and in my opinion, creativity leads to solving problems.  


How sad to label an entire school as failing or needing to be restructured based on one test score.  Teachers are trained to teach.  We need to allow them to shine by letting them do so.    

~ltk


CITATION: Baker, E. A., & Dooley, C. (2010, March 1). Teaching language arts in a high stakes era. Voice of Literacy. Podcast retrieved from http://voiceofliteracy.org