http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=30948632&as=127586 Most Recent Submissions from Amy_Vanden_Boogart on ASCD EDge Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:12:00 GMT Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:12:00 GMT website@ascd.org (ascdAdmin) website@ascd.org (ascdAdmin) KickApps Feed Builder 2013-03-30T01:12:00Z 1 http://edge.ascd.org/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=127586&includeVideo=on&includeAudio=on&includePhoto=on&includeBlog=on&sortType=recent 0 http://edge.ascd.org/_Every-Teacher-a-Teacher-of-Reading-How-Teacher-Preparation-Programs-Can-Help-Teachers-to-Meet-the-Common-Core-Standards/blog/6518278/127586.html This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum, or join the ASCD Forum group on ASCD EDge.   We have all heard the adage, “Every teacher a teacher of reading.” Some educators find this notion controversial because our education system is not set up to allow every teacher to be a teacher of reading. Departmentalization is the norm in middle and high schools, and even in a good number of elementary schools. One teacher teaches language arts, while others teach math, science, or social studies. Some content area teachers are understandably frightened at the thought of having to teach reading. For teachers whose expertise is in math or social studies, the idea of having to teach reading might be unpalatable. But we have entered the era of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the standards have brought the notion of “every teacher a teacher of reading” back full force. In addition, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2011 reading scores tell us that a large percentage of our students really do need help to read proficiently. Only 34% of fourth graders read at or above a proficient level, and a third of fourth graders read below the basic level for their grade [National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2011]. The story only gets a little better for eighth graders; 34% read at or above a proficient level, and 24% read below basic (NCES, 2011). All educators must therefore band together and embrace the challenge of helping their students become proficient readers, and teacher preparation programs play a huge role in this challenge.    The CCSS writers themselves seem to support the notion of “every teacher a teacher of reading.” The introduction to the CCSS for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects states,   “The Standards insist that instruction in reading, writing, speaking, listening,
and language be a shared responsibility within the school. The K–5 standards include expectations for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language applicable to a range of subjects, including but not limited to ELA. The grades 6–12 standards are divided into two sections, one for ELA and the other for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. This division reflects the unique, time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students’ literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in other areas must have a role in this development as well” (p. 4).   And in the section that discusses what is not covered by the standards, the CCSS writers continue,   “The Standards define literacy expectations in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, but literacy standards in other areas, such as mathematics and health education, modeled on those in this document are strongly encouraged to facilitate a comprehensive, schoolwide literacy program” (p. 6).   The interdisciplinary approach to literacy taken by the CCSS poses a challenge to teacher preparation programs nationwide. How can teacher educators prepare teachers who will be effective not only in their areas of disciplinary expertise, but also in enabling their students to access the varied and complex texts that they encounter throughout the grades? I believe that a three-pronged approach will help teacher preparation programs foster and sustain the effectiveness of all teachers as teachers of reading.   First, there should be increased preparation for elementary teachers in how to teach reading. In my Master’s program in elementary education, through which I attained my licensure for teaching grades Pre-K through 6, I had only one course specifically focused on reading, and a lot of our time and assignments in this course were focused on children’s literature. This was great because using children’s literature appropriately and effectively is certainly one very important aspect of teaching reading. But with the increasing focus on informational text in the CCSS and with the multitude of skills that underlie proficient reading, it takes much more than one course on reading to help elementary teachers learn all that they need to know and be able to do to teach reading. My Master’s program also included coursework on teaching language arts, but a lot of this was focused on writing instruction and development. This was also incredibly important and valuable content, but there still seemed to be a lot of content on teaching reading that there simply wasn’t enough time to cover. Preparation in the teaching of reading for elementary teachers must be much more extensive. It must cover the five big areas of reading [phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000)] thoroughly and with lots of opportunity for application in working with students.   Second, all teachers need to know and understand the five big areas of reading. A high school math teacher would then be able to discuss with other professionals in her school what to do about a student who might be reading very choppily from his math textbook, using the term fluency. A high school biology teacher with a student who could not read the complex, multi-syllable words in his textbook would understand that there might be a phonics-based or morphological weakness underlying the student’s difficulty reading, and could seek assistance from the school’s reading specialist on ways to support this student. Having some working knowledge of the different areas of reading with which students struggle would empower content area teachers. Many secondary education programs do include one course on reading and writing across the curriculum, but this type of coursework should be more comprehensive and inclusive of the five big areas of reading. (No one ever talks about phonemic awareness or phonics and very rarely do they discuss fluency with middle or high school teachers!) Teacher preparation programs should also require all teachers to complete case studies where they practice implementing literacy strategies within their content areas with students so that they are prepared to incorporate literacy instruction into their teaching in ways consistent with the CCSS.    Finally, content area methods classes in teacher preparation programs should emphasize the specific disciplinary challenges inherent in that content area. For instance, a few years ago I worked on a content analysis study of middle school history textbooks. We tried to identify the specific features inherent in historical writing that might prove challenging for students. Our work revealed that text structures such as cause and effect and chronology, and linguistic features such as unclear referential devices are some of the most common in history texts. These are the features of historical texts that history teachers should be prepared to emphasize with their students, providing them with strategies for tackling these linguistic and structural challenges. The texts of each discipline have their own unique challenges, and when teachers are familiar with these challenges, they can help their students overcome them more easily.   The CCSS have set a high bar with the expectation that all teachers must be teachers of reading. It is now up to teacher preparation programs to prepare all teachers to take on this role.     References   National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012–457). Retrieved from   http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf   National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum, or join the ASCD Forum group on ASCD EDge.   We have all heard the adage, “Every teacher a teacher of reading.” Some educators find this notion controversial because our education system is not set up to allow every teacher to be a teacher of reading. Departmentalization is the norm in middle and high schools, and even in a good number of elementary schools. One teacher teaches language arts, while others teach math, science, or social studies. Some content area teachers are understandably frightened at the thought of having to teach reading. For teachers whose expertise is in math or social studies, the idea of having to teach reading might be unpalatable. But we have entered the era of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the standards have brought the notion of “every teacher a teacher of reading” back full force. In addition, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2011 reading scores tell us that a large percentage of our students really do need help to read proficiently. Only 34% of fourth graders read at or above a proficient level, and a third of fourth graders read below the basic level for their grade [National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2011]. The story only gets a little better for eighth graders; 34% read at or above a proficient level, and 24% read below basic (NCES, 2011). All educators must therefore band together and embrace the challenge of helping their students become proficient readers, and teacher preparation programs play a huge role in this challenge.    The CCSS writers themselves seem to support the notion of “every teacher a teacher of reading.” The introduction to the CCSS for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects states,   “The Standards insist that instruction in reading, writing, speaking, listening,
and language be a shared responsibility within the school. The K–5 standards include expectations for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language applicable to a range of subjects, including but not limited to ELA. The grades 6–12 standards are divided into two sections, one for ELA and the other for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. This division reflects the unique, time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students’ literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in other areas must have a role in this development as well” (p. 4).   And in the section that discusses what is not covered by the standards, the CCSS writers continue,   “The Standards define literacy expectations in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, but literacy standards in other areas, such as mathematics and health education, modeled on those in this document are strongly encouraged to facilitate a comprehensive, schoolwide literacy program” (p. 6).   The interdisciplinary approach to literacy taken by the CCSS poses a challenge to teacher preparation programs nationwide. How can teacher educators prepare teachers who will be effective not only in their areas of disciplinary expertise, but also in enabling their students to access the varied and complex texts that they encounter throughout the grades? I believe that a three-pronged approach will help teacher preparation programs foster and sustain the effectiveness of all teachers as teachers of reading.   First, there should be increased preparation for elementary teachers in how to teach reading. In my Master’s program in elementary education, through which I attained my licensure for teaching grades Pre-K through 6, I had only one course specifically focused on reading, and a lot of our time and assignments in this course were focused on children’s literature. This was great because using children’s literature appropriately and effectively is certainly one very important aspect of teaching reading. But with the increasing focus on informational text in the CCSS and with the multitude of skills that underlie proficient reading, it takes much more than one course on reading to help elementary teachers learn all that they need to know and be able to do to teach reading. My Master’s program also included coursework on teaching language arts, but a lot of this was focused on writing instruction and development. This was also incredibly important and valuable content, but there still seemed to be a lot of content on teaching reading that there simply wasn’t enough time to cover. Preparation in the teaching of reading for elementary teachers must be much more extensive. It must cover the five big areas of reading [phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000)] thoroughly and with lots of opportunity for application in working with students.   Second, all teachers need to know and understand the five big areas of reading. A high school math teacher would then be able to discuss with other professionals in her school what to do about a student who might be reading very choppily from his math textbook, using the term fluency. A high school biology teacher with a student who could not read the complex, multi-syllable words in his textbook would understand that there might be a phonics-based or morphological weakness underlying the student’s difficulty reading, and could seek assistance from the school’s reading specialist on ways to support this student. Having some working knowledge of the different areas of reading with which students struggle would empower content area teachers. Many secondary education programs do include one course on reading and writing across the curriculum, but this type of coursework should be more comprehensive and inclusive of the five big areas of reading. (No one ever talks about phonemic awareness or phonics and very rarely do they discuss fluency with middle or high school teachers!) Teacher preparation programs should also require all teachers to complete case studies where they practice implementing literacy strategies within their content areas with students so that they are prepared to incorporate literacy instruction into their teaching in ways consistent with the CCSS.    Finally, content area methods classes in teacher preparation programs should emphasize the specific disciplinary challenges inherent in that content area. For instance, a few years ago I worked on a content analysis study of middle school history textbooks. We tried to identify the specific features inherent in historical writing that might prove challenging for students. Our work revealed that text structures such as cause and effect and chronology, and linguistic features such as unclear referential devices are some of the most common in history texts. These are the features of historical texts that history teachers should be prepared to emphasize with their students, providing them with strategies for tackling these linguistic and structural challenges. The texts of each discipline have their own unique challenges, and when teachers are familiar with these challenges, they can help their students overcome them more easily.   The CCSS have set a high bar with the expectation that all teachers must be teachers of reading. It is now up to teacher preparation programs to prepare all teachers to take on this role.     References   National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012–457). Retrieved from   http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf   National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:12:00 GMT http://edge.ascd.org/_Every-Teacher-a-Teacher-of-Reading-How-Teacher-Preparation-Programs-Can-Help-Teachers-to-Meet-the-Common-Core-Standards/blog/6518278/127586.html Amy_Vanden_Boogart 2013-03-30T01:12:00Z ASCD EDge This post is a part of the ASCD Forum conversation “how do we define and measure teacher and principal effectiveness?” To learn more about the ASCD Forum, go to www.ascd.org/ascdforum, or join the ASCD Forum group on ASCD EDge.   We have all heard the adage, “Every teacher a teacher of reading.” Some educators find this notion controversial because our education system is not set up to allow every teacher to be a teacher of reading. Departmentalization is the norm in middle and high schools, and even in a good number of elementary schools. One teacher teaches language arts, while others teach math, science, or social studies. Some content area teachers are understandably frightened at the thought of having to teach reading. For teachers whose expertise is in math or social studies, the idea of having to teach reading might be unpalatable. But we have entered the era of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and the standards have brought the notion of “every teacher a teacher of reading” back full force. In addition, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2011 reading scores tell us that a large percentage of our students really do need help to read proficiently. Only 34% of fourth graders read at or above a proficient level, and a third of fourth graders read below the basic level for their grade [National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2011]. The story only gets a little better for eighth graders; 34% read at or above a proficient level, and 24% read below basic (NCES, 2011). All educators must therefore band together and embrace the challenge of helping their students become proficient readers, and teacher preparation programs play a huge role in this challenge.    The CCSS writers themselves seem to support the notion of “every teacher a teacher of reading.” The introduction to the CCSS for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects states,   “The Standards insist that instruction in reading, writing, speaking, listening,
and language be a shared responsibility within the school. The K–5 standards include expectations for reading, writing, speaking, listening, and language applicable to a range of subjects, including but not limited to ELA. The grades 6–12 standards are divided into two sections, one for ELA and the other for history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. This division reflects the unique, time-honored place of ELA teachers in developing students’ literacy skills while at the same time recognizing that teachers in other areas must have a role in this development as well” (p. 4).   And in the section that discusses what is not covered by the standards, the CCSS writers continue,   “The Standards define literacy expectations in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects, but literacy standards in other areas, such as mathematics and health education, modeled on those in this document are strongly encouraged to facilitate a comprehensive, schoolwide literacy program” (p. 6).   The interdisciplinary approach to literacy taken by the CCSS poses a challenge to teacher preparation programs nationwide. How can teacher educators prepare teachers who will be effective not only in their areas of disciplinary expertise, but also in enabling their students to access the varied and complex texts that they encounter throughout the grades? I believe that a three-pronged approach will help teacher preparation programs foster and sustain the effectiveness of all teachers as teachers of reading.   First, there should be increased preparation for elementary teachers in how to teach reading. In my Master’s program in elementary education, through which I attained my licensure for teaching grades Pre-K through 6, I had only one course specifically focused on reading, and a lot of our time and assignments in this course were focused on children’s literature. This was great because using children’s literature appropriately and effectively is certainly one very important aspect of teaching reading. But with the increasing focus on informational text in the CCSS and with the multitude of skills that underlie proficient reading, it takes much more than one course on reading to help elementary teachers learn all that they need to know and be able to do to teach reading. My Master’s program also included coursework on teaching language arts, but a lot of this was focused on writing instruction and development. This was also incredibly important and valuable content, but there still seemed to be a lot of content on teaching reading that there simply wasn’t enough time to cover. Preparation in the teaching of reading for elementary teachers must be much more extensive. It must cover the five big areas of reading [phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000)] thoroughly and with lots of opportunity for application in working with students.   Second, all teachers need to know and understand the five big areas of reading. A high school math teacher would then be able to discuss with other professionals in her school what to do about a student who might be reading very choppily from his math textbook, using the term fluency. A high school biology teacher with a student who could not read the complex, multi-syllable words in his textbook would understand that there might be a phonics-based or morphological weakness underlying the student’s difficulty reading, and could seek assistance from the school’s reading specialist on ways to support this student. Having some working knowledge of the different areas of reading with which students struggle would empower content area teachers. Many secondary education programs do include one course on reading and writing across the curriculum, but this type of coursework should be more comprehensive and inclusive of the five big areas of reading. (No one ever talks about phonemic awareness or phonics and very rarely do they discuss fluency with middle or high school teachers!) Teacher preparation programs should also require all teachers to complete case studies where they practice implementing literacy strategies within their content areas with students so that they are prepared to incorporate literacy instruction into their teaching in ways consistent with the CCSS.    Finally, content area methods classes in teacher preparation programs should emphasize the specific disciplinary challenges inherent in that content area. For instance, a few years ago I worked on a content analysis study of middle school history textbooks. We tried to identify the specific features inherent in historical writing that might prove challenging for students. Our work revealed that text structures such as cause and effect and chronology, and linguistic features such as unclear referential devices are some of the most common in history texts. These are the features of historical texts that history teachers should be prepared to emphasize with their students, providing them with strategies for tackling these linguistic and structural challenges. The texts of each discipline have their own unique challenges, and when teachers are familiar with these challenges, they can help their students overcome them more easily.   The CCSS have set a high bar with the expectation that all teachers must be teachers of reading. It is now up to teacher preparation programs to prepare all teachers to take on this role.     References   National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012–457). Retrieved from   http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf   National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. nonadult false Every Teacher a Teacher of Reading: How Teacher Preparation Programs Can Help Teachers to Meet the Common Core Standards text blog 1121 11 4.818182 http://edge.ascd.org/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=30948632&as=127586 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/127586/photos/PHOTO_13915054_127586_30948632_ap_160X120.jpg false United States VA Alexandria 6 0 6518278 30948632 ASCD EDge Member 250