Matt, this is a powerful and insightful article. Commercial reading programs can serve as useful frameworks, but they can never meet the full needs of our students because they don't know our students. The "convenience trap" you mention is real, especially if teachers and leaders lack the knowledge to teach readers well. That convenience trap often becomes a "coercion trap." Teachers "go along to get along." What a terrific finding from students as readers: that they like challenges and authentic experiences. I think that's true for most of us, especially if we know we have the full support and requisite strategies to be successful.
Positioning programs as a framework for instruction is a wise approach. It recognizes an organization's desire for consistency and coherence while not taking away teachers' professional judgment. An important point, too, about programs inhibiting open dialogue if the resource is trusted more than the teachers. Student voice data is really powerful for shaping teachers' and leaders' beliefs and theories of action. Thanks Regie!
Shared on my LinkedIn account. This is important during these moments of curricular decision-making. I, unfortunately, have watched too many teachers opt for convenience that leaves kids out of the richness of truly becoming a lifelong reader.
I have observed too much deference to a program, too. I am trying to stay curious and ask, "What are the conditions in the school that are influencing these decisions?"
In our case, the pressure to have more kids successful on state tests and, honestly, teacher prep is a problem here. Not enough time is spent making certain that teachers understand how children learn to read and how to teach into this as opposed to following a program without deviation. This is so not a 'one size fits all' approach and we do not focus enough on developing a teacher's ability to diagnose what they see and design the appropriate next steps...
Matt, this is a powerful and insightful article. Commercial reading programs can serve as useful frameworks, but they can never meet the full needs of our students because they don't know our students. The "convenience trap" you mention is real, especially if teachers and leaders lack the knowledge to teach readers well. That convenience trap often becomes a "coercion trap." Teachers "go along to get along." What a terrific finding from students as readers: that they like challenges and authentic experiences. I think that's true for most of us, especially if we know we have the full support and requisite strategies to be successful.
Positioning programs as a framework for instruction is a wise approach. It recognizes an organization's desire for consistency and coherence while not taking away teachers' professional judgment. An important point, too, about programs inhibiting open dialogue if the resource is trusted more than the teachers. Student voice data is really powerful for shaping teachers' and leaders' beliefs and theories of action. Thanks Regie!
Shared on my LinkedIn account. This is important during these moments of curricular decision-making. I, unfortunately, have watched too many teachers opt for convenience that leaves kids out of the richness of truly becoming a lifelong reader.
I have observed too much deference to a program, too. I am trying to stay curious and ask, "What are the conditions in the school that are influencing these decisions?"
In our case, the pressure to have more kids successful on state tests and, honestly, teacher prep is a problem here. Not enough time is spent making certain that teachers understand how children learn to read and how to teach into this as opposed to following a program without deviation. This is so not a 'one size fits all' approach and we do not focus enough on developing a teacher's ability to diagnose what they see and design the appropriate next steps...
All too common...