Schools that have adopted such curricula have found that virtually all children-including those of color, those from low-income families, and those diagnosed with learning disabilities- blossom and thrive. They guide teachers to spend a couple of weeks or more on a particular topic-rather than choosing books on random topics because they lend themselves to demonstrating “skills”-giving kids a chance to absorb information and vocabulary. Instead of the standard approach of focusing on largely illusory comprehension skills, these newly developed elementary literacy curricula aim to build children’s knowledge. While encouraging districts to create new approaches and calling for research on “enrichment curricula,” the report also fails to note that several such curricula already exist. And the report skirts the question of why low-income Asian students often do so well on tests if the SDAG members had looked into the afterschool programs so many of those students attend, they might have found they don’t just do test prep-they build knowledge. Carranza said when announcing the report on Tuesday, “it’s about giving all of our students what they need to meet the bar.” But what is that? You wouldn’t know it from the report, but the answer is pretty clear.ĭespite many months of study by the panel’s 40 members and repeated claims that its recommendations are based in research, the report fails to mention the scientific evidence that reading comprehension-and, by extension, much of academic success-is largely dependent on knowledge.
“This is not about lowering the bar,” city schools chancellor Richard A. But the report has nothing more specific to propose than “creative, equitable enrichment alternatives” that the city’s community school districts should be encouraged to “develop” and “implement.” The SDAG panel is undoubtedly right that there are many African-American and Hispanic students in the system who would benefit from greater academic challenges and whose potential is being wasted. That’s not to say that New York’s education system is fine the way it is. If students lack the knowledge to understand the passages on the tests, they can’t demonstrate their “skills.” And broad knowledge and vocabulary are crucial not only to doing well on tests but to doing well in school and, in most cases, in life. But the reading tests presumably assess what virtually all standardized reading tests primarily measure: not general comprehension or "test prep" skills, but general knowledge and vocabulary. The tests may not be perfect-I haven’t seen them-and using a single test to determine admission sounds unwise (although the switch to that criterion was intended to advance equity by eliminating possible bias in teachers’ recommendations). Repeatedly, the report attributes the higher test scores of whites and Asians (including many from low-income families) to “test prep,” as though the tests had nothing to do with predicting students’ academic performance. The SDAG panel dismisses the exams that determine admission to gifted and talented programs and selective high schools as though they were nothing more than arbitrary barriers erected to keep out deserving low-income children of color. In effect, the system maintains and reinforces existing inequities. Without an opportunity to gain knowledge, the low readers continue reading simple books, with low-level vocabulary and concepts, while the higher readers enjoy access to increasingly more sophisticated texts. The result is that children who are the most dependent on school to build the knowledge that is crucial to reading comprehension-children from less educated families, who are unlikely to acquire that kind of knowledge at home-are the least likely to get it there. In most elementary schools-and especially those where test scores are low-the curriculum has been narrowed to math and reading. Whatever the reason, the children who start out at low reading levels are generally condemned to stay there.
Sometimes children read at a low level because they haven’t been taught to decode words in a way that is likely to work sometimes they can decode but lack the background knowledge and vocabulary that would enable them to understand what they’re reading. Children spend hours every week reading a random variety of books at their own levels-basically, easy enough to read on their own-supposedly practicing comprehension “skills” that are largely meaningless. The theory is that each child has an individual “reading level” that can be determined by testing and could be years below her grade level. This widespread system of tracking is known as leveled reading.
0 kommentar(er)
