Writer, where’s my script!
Two pieces about teaching reading recently. First from Dangerously Irrelevant: Day One: Are You Following the Script? where Greg Cruey discussed using a scripted curriculum that is new to his school, and finishes with the following:
I understand the complaints that people have about working with a scripted curriculum. As we climb through the grades, I think those complaints are more valid in high school than they are in kindergarten.
After six months with our particular reading curriculum, at the moment I’m a fan of it. We’ll see how the year finishes out…
I think the age when the scripted curriculum becomes problematic is sooner than high school, but I’ll get to that later. Cruey discussed many of the pluses of scripted curriculum: it’s great with a transient students population, everyone knows what’s expected. I would add that when you have a large number of under-qualified teachers, scripted curriculum minimizes the chances for gross educational malpractice (which I imagine was part of the appeal when Success for All was implemented in Baltimore, MD).
Next, Doug Noon has a piece, Borderland » Blog Archive » On Reading Skills and Strategies where he discusses how teaching reading strategies is shortchanged and supplanted by teaching reading skills at the cost of good reading instruction and comprehension.
The purpose of reading, after all, is comprehension. Mosaic of Thought described a format for strategic comprehension instruction based on several cognitive processes used by proficient readers. Strategic comprehension instruction lessons became a common feature in textbooks during the 1990’s, and were associated with constructive models of reading instruction. Researchers, however, report that these strategies (which include connecting new information to background knowledge, creating sensory images, asking questions, drawing inferences, determining what’s important, synthesizing ideas, and solving problems at the word level) are not being widely taught. Part of the reason for this may be due to the fact that they are positioned in textbooks alongside skills instruction as if they are independent of each other, which causes confusion (Afflerbach, Pearson & Paris). Also, the “scientifically based reading research” position emphasizes skills over strategies, and that view is currently in rhetorical ascendancy.
This is where scripts break down in my opinion, with the higher order thinking, and this is demanded well before High School.
My own words much earlier on this from The Blog of Ms. Mercer » What DO they need?
I think this is because ultimately, you can’t always script this sort of teaching. Going back to a link from Doug Noon, good teachers are constantly “reading” their class, and adjusting their instruction. A script can’t tell you that. I think the teacher featured in the story that started all this gives a good example of how to make the learning accessible, engaging, and meaningful. I can only hope to do as well.
I want to go back to that link and something Mr. Cruey said that was a little troubling. One of his points in favor of this curriculum was that it made it easier for administrator to judge if you are teaching (and students are learning) because it’s all predicated on following the script. That assumes the script is comprehensive enough to meet the needs of all your students.
I’m going to lay out the case that it will not be based on my experience with this curriculum. Look back at the link above from Doug Noon. It discusses how effective teachers (judged by how much their students learned) constantly monitor and adjust their instruction. You cannot do this with a script.Next, The program Mr. Cruey is using is based on a “spiral/review” method. I’ve experienced it both for Math and Language Arts instruction. It leaves students who are language learners or have processing disorders behind. They need more consistent not diffuse repetition to pick up concepts. Next, I’ll let the numbers speak for themselves on test scores. California did a big move to more scripted/phonics based programs about 5-7 years ago. In districts where they were adopted and I worked, you would get a bump up on scores for a year or two or three, then they would flatline. Part of this may have been familiarity, it was no longer novel, but I suspect that the skills being taught (and it was mostly skills, not strategies) are sufficient to get students to a Basic level of competency, but because they aren’t learning higher order thinking skills, they can’t go beyond that. In support of that position, we had a noted testing expert (she provides strategies for improving scores at PI schools) basically say of our reading program, you can teach the whole book, but it will only take students to a basic level of proficiency. She knew the standards, and she knew what that curriculum was teaching. The further up through the grades, the bigger the gap is between the standards and the text.
Here is my advice for someone starting with a scripted program. Get to know the program, and do frequent standards based assessments, not just the assessments provided by the publisher. Learn the program, use the program. When your scores flatline, or are nor longer good enough, go back and look at where the program is thin and not covering the standards, then leave the script, and add what you need to make it work. Be clear in what the program is doing, what you are doing, and what needs to be done. The alternative will be running around, wringing your hands wondering what “you” did wrong, what can be done, what could be wrong. Matthew Needleman has done a lot with scripted programs and making them hit those high order skills. You might want to check him out when you hit that point (or before). Most people get sucked into the phonics, etc. and ignore the comprehension part of it, don’t make that mistake.
Further reading also at:
The Blog of Ms. Mercer » Comprehensive and Scripted Curriculum…
I saw the post by Greg Cruey, and I didn’t link to it because I was dismayed by the idea that anyone could endorse the idea that a script might serve as evidence of competent teaching. To me, Cruey’s post was testimony to the deskilling of administrators and teachers alike, and anyone who could endorse such a mindless view of teaching and accountability is hopelessly lost, IMO. As you can see, I feel quite strongly about this.
I am lucky, at this time, to be free of scripted curricula – though I suffer a “pacing guide” with math that I view as an a harbinger of scriptedness-to-come.
To follow the advice you offer (in your final paragraph) teachers and administrators will have to actually learn something about the content area they’re teaching as well as a variety of assessment techniques. It’s a lot to expect of people, I know. But easy solutions are all that remains after we discount competent human judgment.
Thanks.
I read all of these posts as well and have been struggling with my responses to them. I am struggling no more. You put into words my concerns and did so much more beautifully than I was capable of. I second Doug’s thanks.
Thanks guys, but before we turn this into a love fest…
If you look in Greg’s comments, and you really look back at what he said, he did point out that being on script gave admins a beginning point to see if teachers were doing their job, not the final word on it. I perhaps decontextualized his comment a bit. I will also point to my earlier points in favor of scripts about underqualified teachers. He may have some teachers that DO NOT know what teaching reading looks like at all (not unusual where I teach, or where he teaches).
Look, I know the life cycle of many of these programs, so I know it won’t solve all their problems. Rather than say, “won’t work, won’t work” most teachers want to hear and an answer to, “okay, what now?”
We need folks like Doug discussing the research, and folks like me sharing our experience, and others with the courage to say, “hey, that’s wrong,” to make things change in the big picture, but until it does change there, how ya gonna teacher without tearing out your hair? Cause Doug, I can almost guarantee that eventually, an administrator is going to tell you, “throw out that pacing guide, do what you have to do to get results.”
Your points about a scripted curriculum are true. It does give administrators a place to start and means that underqualified teachers may be doing less harm to their students. However, my concern is that the scripted curriculum is frequently seen, by the public and by higher ups in school districts, as much more than that. Partly because publishers present them as much more than that. I think scripted curriculums are band aids. And, while that does suggest that they have a place in schools, it also means that using them can cover up the problem rather than truly address it. We need administrators who are knowledgeable about instruction and teachers who are strong. Anything less than this is a disservice to our students.
Very good points about scripted curriculums. The bad news and the good news is that it’s the person in the front of the room who makes the biggest difference. Through my web site I’ve met so many wonderful teachers like you (and probably everyone who would read and comment on a blog this this) who make the curriculum their own and they would be great teachers with or without a program.
I’m trying to put this diplomatically but what about teachers who aren’t very effective or creative? I think they’d be worse without a program and although the program doesn’t make them good it might make them at least mediocre and ensure that her kids at least get exposure to the skills their neighbors are getting.
It’s also a frustration of mine that even where our reading program calls for differentiation, research and inquiry, these are the least frequently used parts of the program. Teachers never skip the workbooks though. Teachers tend to like worksheets. If you took away the program I suspect many teachers (present company excepted of course) would replace it with more worksheets and replace the prescribed direct instruction with their own lecturing.
It’s often repeated in the blogosphere but we really need to completely rethink how we’re educating students in favor of more project based learning to engage students and prepare them for the future. I understand the the advantages and disadvantages of prescribed curriculums but I’m not sure if there’s a better wide scale alternative available today.
Matthew, thank you for commenting, I think the most important thing to tell competent teachers is similar to what you did in your first year teacher letter. Basically, pay attention, figure out what you can improve on, don’t do it all at once, but make it your own over time. I think people need to know that’s alright, and it’s not follow the script vs. throw the book out. I like to warn people in the spring-like honeymoon of adopting a program like that so they are prepared and not broken-hearted when the program doesn’t take care of everything. You are right on about the teacher quality problems that occur, but that is getting to be less and less an issue where I teach. Where it is (and I’m guessing that Appalachia is one of those places), it can at least provide some structure where the teacher cannot.
Alice, what an important issue you have raised, considering the growing number of teachers who are required to teach a scripted program. I agree with you that for teachers who have entered the field without much background in teaching literacy skills, having that mandated program can be a starting point on their search for ways to engage their students in reading and writing.
One weak point of scripted programs the revolve around a single publisher’s program (Beware of weapons of mass instruction!) is that due to the high cost of purchasing rights to a few well-known authors, publishers often have to fill the rest of the anthology with some mediocre pieces. Not the kind of writing that inspires students to want to read more by an individual author (and, in my experience when students do hook on to a single author or two, literacy jumps start to happen). The literacy jumps do not happen by having students read the story and then head to the workbook pages (Mathew’s observation and concern). There is much research to show that literacy acquisition ia all about making inter-textual connections – the kinds of connections you and Mathew provide students in your computer labs.
I want to share a videoclip produced by a group of 6th graders who will show how it is possible to take a piece from, for example, Open Court and take that piece beyond the text and beyond the walls of the classroom – H:\Data\Word\YouthRadio\yrpodcast07.mov. In this sample, students are talking about podcasts, which they upload to the Youth Radio blog – http://youthradio.wordpress.com.
Bottom line: you can script teaching, but you can’t script learning.
Great conversation!
Gail
Oops – here’s the correct URL for the videoclip – http://www.egusd.net/youthradio/yrpodcast07.mov
Gail again
OK, one more comment – Here’s a link to Know More, Read Better – http://tinyurl.com/3xs4ny – an article by E.D. Hirsch published in the Pioneer Press. If you don’t have time to read the article (it’s short), here’s a snippet:
“In light of the relevant science, an analysis of the textbooks and methods used
to teach reading and language arts for three hours a day in many places indicates
some of the reasons for the disappointing later results. These test-prep materials
are constructed on the mistaken view that reading comprehension is a skill that
can be perfected by practice, as typing can be. This how-to conception of reading
has caused schools to spend a lot of unproductive time on trivial content and on
drills such as “finding the main idea” and less time on history, science
and the arts.”
this is a good story scripted
good lock!
Gail makes good points about the quality of the literature in anthologies. This is true of any series, some stories are good and some are not so good. I view the anthology reading as practice reading for the real reading students will do later. I have students read independently and prepare reports, do literature circles with me, they listen to me read great books to them, etc. so that they find the literature that speaks to them.
The biggest problem is perhaps time. Many teachers feel like don’t have time to expose students to any other literature or get to anything else at all. It’s a legitimate concern.
I don’t know how to reach out to teachers and get them to move more quickly through the guided components so that they can get to the more student-led independent activities which are there, though they’re often pushed aside. Those are the places where the script calls for the teacher to improv.