Lose, Mary K.

English

Scholarworks@GVSU

Michigan Reading Journal Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 7 April 2005 Teacher Decision-Making or Labeling? No Contest Mary K. Lose Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj Recommended Citation Lose, Mary K. (2005) "Teacher Decision-Making or Labeling? No Contest," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol37/iss3/7 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu. Tm: STATE OF READING IN THE STATE OF MicmGAN Bond, G.L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5-142. Carle, E. (1969) The very hungry caterpillar. New York: Philomel Books. Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. An inquiry into the science, art, and ideology of old and new methods of teaching children to read, 1910-1965. New York: McGraw Hill. Cramer, R. L. (2004). The language arts: A balanced approach to teaching reading, writing, listening, talking, and thinking. Boston: Pearson. Goodman, KS. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(1), 9-30. Martin Jr., B. (1967). Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? (E. Carle, Illus.). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Martin Jr., B. (1970) Fire! Fire! said Mrs. McGuire. (T. Schroeder, Illus.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Michigan Reading Association. (1985). Michigan definition of reading. Retrieved April 1, 205, 2005, from http://www.mraread.org/DEFINIT ION%20OF%20READING.html National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Pub. No. 00-4 754. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http: //www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.htm Smith, B.M. (2005). Research in reading [special section]. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 438-4 70. US Department of Education. (2003). Reading first. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http: //www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/ index.html Valencia, S.W., & Buly, M.R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531. Teacher Decision-Making or Labeling? No Contest BY MARY K. LOSE OAKLAND UNIVERSITY Acommon reaction in literacy education when faced with a struggling reader is to attempt to assign a label to the child. For example, a label is often assigned following school or clinical assessments: learning disabled/LD, dyslexic, devel-opmentally delayed, attention-deficit disorder, or mentally challenged. This tendency to label a child functions within a framework that advocates a pre-planned, prescriptive program of treatment following the identification of the "correct" label for the child: after applying the "appropriate" treatment for the "correct" label, the goal is that the child will attain improved learning outcomes. However, this labeling-treatment approach has clearly been shown to have problems. In the context ofliteracy education, such labeling encourages quick-fix solutions that perpetuate stereotypes and create new problems often at the expense of the child. In addition, such label-ing primarily promotes a "deficit model" approach rather than understanding the whole child and does little 26 to encourage finding and using the child's strengths as a starting point to serving the child and to responding flexibly to the child's developing competencies. MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL .... . THE STATE OF READING IN THE STATE OF MicmGAN It is my experience that given the opportunity, most teachers of reading would readily discard labels and their accompanying prescriptive programs, and instead would much prefer to develop and apply their expertise as instructional decision-makers to the benefit of the child. Therefore in this paper, I propose an alternative approach of applying individu-ally designed and delivered interventions that are based not only on the needs of the child, but equally importantly, on the resources the child brings to the learning situation. This approach to teaching the struggling learner emphasizes knowledge of the child, knowledge of the task, and ongoing, sensitive respond-ing to the whole child. This is not an easy approach and requires considerable teacher knowledge and expertise. However, I am certain that such knowledge and expertise are within the capability of most teach-ers with appropriate teacher education and profes-sional development. However, lock-step curricula and scripted reading programs only interfere with teachers who would like to develop and implement individual interventions. I begin by describing what we already know about the qualities and skills of teachers of literacy who see their primary role as that of instructional deci-sion-makers in their work with struggling literacy learners. Then, I provide suggestions for teachers who wish to immediately begin or strengthen their application of this approach in their classrooms. Next, I propose how all of us engaged in literacy education who subscribe to this approach can influence the promotion and use of this approach. Finally, I provide a brief selection of resources that I hope will provide information and inspiration to teachers interested in learning more about this approach. Teachers of struggling literacy learners who consis-tently achieve high student outcomes recognize that learners bring a range of understandings to literacy learning, including their oral language competence and personal experiences with print and the world. They determine what the child knows and how she knows it and arrange opportunities for the child to direct her own learning and link up known informa-tion to solve new problems. They make learning tasks easy enough for the child to succeed but with one or two challenges for interest and new learning. They maintain high levels of support while encouraging student independence and are quick to withdraw that support as the child gains control over her developing knowledge. They maintain an inquiry stance with genuine wanderings and invitations to the child while, at the same time, expressing respect and affection for the child. In summary, successful teachers who see their primary role as expert instructional decision-makers, initiate, encourage, and continue meaningful learning interactions that are mutually satisfying and informative for the child and the teacher. So, how can a teacher strengthen his role as instruc-tional decision-maker in the classroom and resist the tendency to label a child? To begin, it is fundamental that the teacher makes a conscious decision to not assign a label to the child; instead, I suggest discard-ing at least one label each day, until he knows each child only by the gifts and resources that she brings to any learning context. Next, it will be useful to find time every day to work individually with a child to learn more about her as a person and also to develop skill in individual responding. With experience, as the teacher extends his "response-to-the-individual-child" repertoire of skills, it is critical that he maintain a tentative stance, always asking such questions as "What does this child know now?" "How does she know it?" and "How can I respond best to support her developing competence while fostering her inde-pendence and joy?" As more practice is gained in this Mary K. Lose is assistant professor of reading and language arts and director and trainer of the Reading Recovery Center at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. Mary's research interests center on contingent teaching and early literacy development-particularly early intervention policies and initiatives-and children's writing and the relationship to literacy learning. The recipient of a New Zealand Literacy Trust Fellowship, she studied with New Zealand National Reading Recovery, Auckland College of Education, in July and August 2002. She finds working with teachers and children the most interesting, delightful, and rewarding work of all. SPRING 2005 - VoL. 37, No. 3 27 THE STATE OF READING IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN approach, I suggest that the teacher take an inven-tory of his teaching skills, asking: "What else do I need to learn to help me respond to the students who most depend on my expertise?" Finally, I suggest that teachers avoid pursuing a "going it alone" approach. For example, a very useful resource from which to seek support and assistance are colleagues who are already skilled in working with individual struggling learners. While I believe that there are many actions teachers can take to adopt such an approach in their class-rooms, I also recognize that reform is also needed at broader levels. In particular, I suggest that the time is right for literacy educators to use our influence as members of the International Reading Association and the Michigan Reading Association to promote instructional decision-making as the primary role of teachers. In addition, it is crucial that the primary emphasis in teacher education and professional development programs should always be the develop-ment of high-quality teacher decision-making. It is Be Assured BY CONSTANCE WEAVER WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY of fundamental importance that all of us involved in literacy education counteract the current bias towards approaches that elevate labeling and scripted approaches to teaching, and instead promote and support the primary role of teachers as instructional decision-makers resulting in much greater benefits to the children that we serve. Suggested Reading List: Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lyons, C. A. (2003). Teaching struggling readers: How to use brain-based research to maximize learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. O'Leary, S. (1997). Five kids: Stories of children learning to read. Bothell, WA: Wright Group/ McGraw-Hill. Paley, V. (1981). Wally's Stories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. W hen I entered the classroom that day, I began by asking students "What do you do when you read a text?" I expected some frivolous answers like "I stretch out on my bed," but the students took my question seriously. Perhaps they thought "text" was limited to textbook, though, because the responses included comments like 28 "Highlight the boldfaced words," "Look over the page and see if anything pops out at me," "Read just the summary," and one or two responses like "Use context to get key words." Not a single person said anything like "Try to understand the text" or "Think about what I'm reading." We might optimistically have hoped that of course most of the students were focusing on meaning anyway, but their typical recall and understanding suggested otherwise. Connie Weaver, just retired from the faculty at Western Michigan University, has been active in the fields of literacy and language arts for over three decades and has served as a member and director of the Commission on Reading of the National Council of Teachers of English. Her most recent book on reading, the 3rd edition of Reading Process and Practice, is complemented by two edited books that are used in the NCTE's Reading Initiative, a professional development program for teachers. MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL 

Teacher Decision-Making or Labeling? No Contest

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1587&context=mrj

Teacher Decision-Making or Labeling? No Contest

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarworks@GVSU