Within the course of my blogs, I’ve noticed that I always somehow connected the subject of the week to issues or situations taking place within my world of teaching. This in turn has made me realize that many issues do affect my teaching more than what I realized. And the trends, well, they are constantly influencing my methods of teaching. Point blank—issues and trends are what drive our curriculum. This class has made me question even more the motives of all these issues and trends, but most importantly it has inspired me to ask, “How do they benefit our students, and why are we changing what we have in place? Are the changes brought about because new research has disproved the old, or is it because certain outside interests want a piece of a money-making product?”

 Within all this, I now start to question further, “Where is the policy that is supposed to ensure that our students receive the best education possible? Why does such an advanced country produce such vague policies?” Other countries’ policies ensure that their students learn multiple languages and appreciate the values of all cultures. They don’t seem to be swayed by financial or egotistical motives. Meanwhile, our policy focuses on just one of everything, especially language—English. As a result, we are producing very shallow learners. Is this really fair to our students?

I definitely am walking away from this class more critical, but not negative. Reading my blogs made me realize that I am in the thick of it. I need to be an advocate for those whose voices are silenced and who have to endure the changes that come trickling down from the top—our students. I feel that more people are becoming aware of the motives behind the issues and trends that surround education and are expressing their discontent with it all. I sincerely hope that this pressure starts to be felt by those who claim that they know what’s best for education.

As I reflect further on how I teach literacy, I feel a sense of guilt towards my students. As a teacher in a Title I school, I have little leeway in how I can teach literacy. We are mandated by the district to instruct our students to make connections, wonderings, and observations as they read stories. We also encourage them to critically think about the author’s purpose. I agree with these methods because I feel that they begin to develop a critical reader, but then when January rolls around, we start to mainly read TAKS passages. So what happens then? All the critical methods are pushed to the side. We still ask the students to make the connections, wonderings, and observations, but they are now part of an ‘attack the passage strategy’, and since it is now associated with TAKS, the students lose interest in implementing this type of method. So now I wonder, is there any way to maintain being a critical reader while interacting within the TAKS genre? Can we still ask literal, interpretive, evaluative, and universal questions of a text (TEK 110.16 (B), when very little connections are made between our students’ lives and the context of the passage? This is the case more frequently than it is not. Can we ask them to “establish purposes for reading selected texts based upon own or others’ desired outcome to enhance comprehension” (TEK 110.16  (A), when they have no say in what they are to read? This is why my guilt lies heavily on my conscience. I feel like just when I get them to enjoy reading, I have to slap them in the face with TAKS. You literally see their demeanors towards reading go from love to loathing. 

It seems, from the teacher’s seat, that major disconnects happen between practice and policy. Especially the closer your school gets to becoming academically unacceptable. At this point, it seems that policy, NCLB, does not care much for what practice has to say. I hear countless times that the TEKS drive the TAKS, but how can this be? I feel that the TEKS do foster a critical reader, but then the TAKS genre disregards this very type of reader. When a teacher allows their students to have a say in what they read, different types of readers emerge. These are readers that read for pleasure, to self educate, and to see the world from a different perspective. These are the readers who could possibly challenge the norm and make change happen. These are the ones who develop into critical readers.

After my discussion with the specialist, and after reading the Jewitt piece, Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms, I couldn’t help but think that this type of teaching is implementing best practices. Despite the race, gender, age, or background of the students we educate, everyone learns in different ways, and as teachers, we need to be mindful of those ways. Some populations might need different or more modes for learning, but nowhere does it state in our curriculum to stick to traditional ways of teaching. The new reading textbook adoptions that are being pitched to our teachers are prime examples of this logic. Each one has lessons that incorporate graphic organizers, stories on computers that highlight text, word study activities, phonic activities, fiction and non-fiction leveled readers, and various activities that incorporate technology using interactive white boards.

The textbook companies are on board, but are the policy makers? And more importantly, are the teachers of today? These adoptions are great, but how effective they will be is really up to the attitudes of policy makers and teachers. If we make a conscious effort towards teaching with more multimodality, we are going to have to be willing to learn a new way of teaching and thinking. I feel that this is what Kist was implying in his article. I feel that even if policy makers are not understanding, and not willing to allocate the appropriate funds for the implementation of multimodality means, we can still find these means within subscriptions to teacher websites or surfing the web. Many of us have been doing this for years. Therefore, the new adoptions are welcomed with open arms. But for those teachers who feel that the worksheet they’ve been using for more than a decade is still an efficient way to teach, multimodality is still a long way from being integrated in their best practices. This is where a clear policy on multimodality could ensure that the best education for all students is being sought after.

That point reminds me of when I was a Pre-K teacher and I was introducing the concept of rhyme to my class. I remember I had one particular student who was not very successful in acquiring literacy concepts. He was the student who would rather play with his shoelace than listen to anything I had to say, but from the moment I gave my first examples of rhyming words, his eyes were on me and I could see he was engaged. Of course, I took full advantage of this moment and asked him to tell me a word that rhymed with ‘bat’ and instantly he said ‘cat.’ Just to make sure he understood the concept, I asked him for more examples, and wouldn’t you know, he said them all- fat, sat, mat, pat…. When he said them I noticed it was in a rapping mode. So, I brought to his attention that he sounded like a rapper, and he said, “I know, I like to rap.” I remember looking at him and noticing that he was sitting taller and with a big smile on his face. It seemed at that moment that all the little light bulbs flickered on in his head. He immediately started blending and making letter and sound recognition.  

It was a big moment for me as a teacher. I realized that my methods –the curriculum– were not the only ones that would work in teaching literacy concepts. I was getting ready to label this student as low performing because he was not grasping the concepts in the manner I wanted him too; when all along, the potential was well within his cognitive state. I just had not tapped into it strategically. This is why it is critical that we embed “culturally relevant teaching” into our practices, so that the students can “develop knowledge by building bridges and scaffolding for learning” (Ladson-Billings).

Another issue is that RTI can possibly minimize the number of students placed in special education because they are labeled LD. In the recent past, teachers on our campus were quick to refer students to special education because the child was academically behind due to their low reading level, which, in turn, could potentially hurt TAKS scores. For the majority of the time, these referrals were started by intermediate teachers who felt that by the time a student entered third grade, they should have already been taught all appropriate strategies to help them succeed in reading.  However, the reality is that many different factors can prevent a student from receiving good reading instruction.

With these intermediate teachers’ thinking in mind, and the high number of referrals, a question surfaced for me, “How will intermediate teachers know how to properly assess a reader as a whole and not just narrowly view them as a student who cannot read?” Primary grade assessments such as TPRI/TEJAS LEE can help determine an area of reading development that is of concern, but intermediate grades only assess students using Flynt Cooter, which only gauges fluency and comprehension. I feel that this is an abrupt transition in assessments. We go from detailed assessments (TPRI/TEJAS LEE) to what I perceive as ‘on the surface’ assessments. If RTI wants to prevent reading failure, shouldn’t their interventions continue into the intermediate grades? After all, doesn’t difficulty in reading occur well past primary grades?

It truly is heartbreaking that these young children have to feel so much pressure so early in life. I can’t help but wonder if we, as a society, have accepted this pressure as a norm. I like to think that we haven’t, but when more and more textbook adoptions come out and have TAKS strategies imbedded within them, it’s hard to keep thinking that testing is going to go away anytime soon. I’m not against tests when they measure a child’s strength or measure areas of concern, but when they start to bring about anger, nervousness, and low self esteem issues in children, something is definitely wrong that needs to be addressed. But it seems that all arguments fall upon deaf ears of those who need to hear it the loudest.

I wonder if those who are in favor of testing have read any articles such as Afflerbach’s, The road to folly and redemption: Perspectives on the legitimacy of high-stakes testing. The perspectives that Afflerbach informs us of about Henry Chauncey’s views on testing are shocking but yet still in existence. When graduating is contingent upon passing the TAKS test, the test is still deciding “what place in society a person should occupy” (pg. 352). Do the proponents view testing this way? Do they realize that if a student can’t graduate, how are they expected to further their education? If they can’t expand their education, their fear of working at Burger King is a legitimate one. Didn’t Chauncey, in all his wisdom, take into account that not everyone is a strong test taker? This lack of thinking is what has gotten us into this mess and allowed the “politically powerful segments of society” (pg. 352) to maintain their power.

I feel that Davis has a strong point when he states that high stakes testing only “measure[s] thin knowledge” (pg.21). This thin knowledge is what is taught during ‘drill and kill’ –basically– test strategies.  It is teaching only test survival skills and in no way teaches a love for reading. When there is no love for reading taking place, reading scores are sacrificed, which, in turn, raises red flags and makes the policy makers feel they have to come to the rescue. This just causes more stipulations to be added to high stakes testing. This is a vicious cycle that the world of education seems to have been caught in for decades now. This makes me question, like Davis, “the legitimacy of the high- stakes assessment enterprise” (pg. 354). I honestly can’t see how any of this testing benefits our children.

Well, that view has changed since I started teaching reading solely to 3^rd through 5^th graders. I’d have to say that I now view comprehension as an essential pillar of reading. To me, it is a non-negotiable concept because we read to make meaning of text. There is no black and white in comprehension. One has to master it in order to be a successful, educated participant in society. I work with strong, fluent decoders who sound beautiful when they read but are unable to tell me what they have just read. Unfortunately, these are the students who struggle with the TAKS test. As a teacher, I find comprehension to be one of the hardest concepts to teach. I agree with the NRP that through the development of a rich vocabulary, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategies instruction, a well rounded reader will emerge. These three aspects remind me of the basis of Fountas and Pinnell’s concept, Reading is Thinking. As the reader interacts with this concept, they are making text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections, questioning the author, making predictions, and documenting their wonderings. In short, they are becoming involved with the text. This helps bring to life the story they are reading. This is what I like to call ‘making the story stick.’

Just as we use different strategies to help struggling readers succeed, we too must use different curriculums to deliver the most effective lesson to our students. All too many times, school districts buy into a curriculum that has been deemed effective by lawmakers or publishing companies. I feel that Allington is right when he says, “Good teaching, effective teaching, is not just about using whatever science says ‘usually’ works best. It is all about finding out what works best for the individual child and the group of children in front of you.” I respect this statement because he is giving credit to the teacher to plan an effective lesson. He is being an advocate for the teacher voice that is too often silenced.  As I have stated before, outsiders to education feel the need to act as our saving graces in planning curriculum, despite the fact that they are far removed from the reality of classrooms today. I know that districts have to buy curriculum adoptions, but why can’t they just purchase them, train us in them, and then give us the flexibility and freedom to utilize our years of experience to expound upon the given curriculum to produce the best lesson for our particular students? Lawyers pull from different cases to make winning arguments, and doctors use different medicines to help alleviate an ailment, based on their assessment of the patient. So why can’t we use different methods? We too acquired a higher education, like many other professions require, but for some reason we are not trusted, as others are, to make educated modifications. I can’t help but wonder why?

However, I feel that the view of principals has changed since the time of publication of the Hoffman et al article. They stated that principals felt the test was an accurate indicator of quality teaching.  I feel that administrators have more of an open mind as to what constitutes a quality teacher. Administrators have witnessed many quality teachers produce low passing rates on the TAKS test but have different types of measurements to show the makeup of a quality teacher. One example is raising a student’s DRA level from below to above grade level.  Maybe this broader view is a result of an administrator who has spent some actual classroom teaching time in the TAKS or TAAS era.  I feel this open mindedness is what helps retain teachers because we all know that too many good teachers are leaving the profession because they feel suffocated by TAKS performance and underappreciated for other forms of good teaching.

The pressure of TAKS is not solely falling on educators anymore. Since 2001, parents are more aware of the consequences of their child’s academic standing in regards to TAKS success because failure now results in retention. This concept outrages some parents because their child may not be a good test taker, etc. However, the flip side is parents are spending more quality educational time with their child to help prep them for a successful TAKS experience. Perhaps this may be one good side to TAKS testing. I wonder how the parents’ answers in 2009 would compare with those of 2001. Would they just think the test is a good indicator of a quality teacher and/or an indicator as to how smart their child is? I wonder if parent views are now more similar to teacher views now that the test has higher stakes that hit home harder than ever before.  

Discussion of TAKS and TEKS takes place on our campus during every waking hour of school. The beginning of our school year was met with a big push on planning effectively and thoroughly, which means each teacher being held accountable for knowing their grade level TEKS inside and out and where their students’ academic needs are within the TEKS.  Not only do the teachers need to know the TEKS, but the students, too. At the beginning of every school week, the teacher reads the actual TEKS to be learned for each subject to their students, and then together as a class the students paraphrase it in the form of an ‘I can’ statement. The ‘I can’ statement, along with the actual TEKS, is then posted at the front of the classroom to serve as a reminder as to what everyone is expected to teach or learn for the week.

Needless to say, this new approach to accountability was not well received by all teachers. They felt it was the district’s way of telling them that they don’t know their grade level TEKS very well.  When in fact each teacher shares the same sentiment that knowing your grade level TEKS is a necessity because they are what drives the instruction. This is a crucial instrument to being an effective teacher. Not one teacher with whom I discuss the TEKS thinks they are weak by any means. They all see the scaffolding that takes place throughout the grade levels to have solid, well-rounded readers. Not one of them is going to skip over any TEKS because they understand that if there is a missing component, it will hinder the child’s development of reading. I think this feeling is shared district-wide from downtown curriculum specialists, to administrators, to reading coaches, and to classroom teachers. Downtown has gone so far as to add Austin Independent School District’s local TEKS to the state TEKS to ensure that the best instruction is being taught to our students.

Little did I know that the Reading Specialist position meant an interventionist position for grades 3rd-5th. If I am not in a meeting learning about a new strategy to implement for TAKS improvement or determining the ‘target students’ (meaning those who did not pass previous TAKS tests), then I am teaching 6-8 reading groups a day that are strategically grouped based on the students’ test ability weaknesses.  So now my reality is all about policy in regards to TAKS.

The campus where I teach is Title 1, with a largely Hispanic population. A lot of these students are first generation American citizens to whom English is their second language. They receive little to no help at home with concepts being taught because they receive instruction in English, and therefore homework is in English, which the parents are unable to help with because they do not read or write in the language of instruction. The reason they are taught in English is strategic. It is to prepare them to take the TAKS test in English because the Spanish TAKS test is harder due to the fact it is given in proper Spanish, as opposed to the different dialects in which our students speak. This strategy has pushed aside the fact that these students are not ready to be transitioned into English.

The second biggest population on campus is African Americans. They too, like  some of the Hispanic students, receive little help at home because of hardships with their home life, which, in some cases, has them being raised by alternative family members, or they might come from single family homes with parents who work long hours.

 Due to minimal parent support, the majority of our students are receiving little early literacy, which in turn becomes a game of catch up for us teachers. That’s fine, because our job is to teach reading, but the fact remains that by the time our students enter third grade, the majority are reading below grade level. So now policy rules the dynamics of the amount of time teachers allot for each subject. The first subject to be sacrificed is… Social Studies, mainly because it is not tested (not yet, anyways). After that is Science, but this is really a big no no because of low scores on the Science TAKS test. As it gets closer to TAKS, the students’ recess time is taken away to allow more time to work on components of TAKS or to take practice TAKS tests.

In my opinion, when the legislature decided that it would be a good idea to implement this test to hold teachers accountable for good teaching, they didn’t take into account that other subjects would be sacrificed. So, instead of admitting faults, they add more tests for the students to take, but in their infinite wisdom, more tests are okay because if you are teaching the TEKS, then the TAKS should be easy for each student to pass.  I am not sure what research told them this or what subjects were their sample group but they couldn’t be more wrong. The demographic makeup of each school in the state of Texas is different and therefore skews their research.

Until the emphasis on testing is a thing of the past and teachers are trusted and allowed to practice their own methods, true teaching is being lost. You can’t tell me that a  valid education is taking place when students are being seen in terms of passers and non-passers.  Or when you are being told that you only need x amount of students to pass in order to not be low performing, and therefore you should hone in on them to make the numbers. Show me the research that can prove that this is effective teaching. 

In my world of teaching, the relationship between practices, research, and policy is truly one of disconnection. There is no cohesiveness when students are bitter toward school at the young age of 8 because they did not pass their test or because school is all about testing, and teachers feel disrespected by the lack of trust they receive from the state. Maybe lawmakers need to stop listening to the whispers in their ears from those such as the testing agencies or neurobiologist neophysiologist, and listen more closely to the loud voices of those who have students’ education at heart – the teachers – those who actually are in the classroom and know the true ways to instill a lifelong and meaningful education.