What do administrators believe are the strong and weak points in their district\u27s reading program? How do they evaluate the performance and capabilities of reading personnel? Do principals at the elementary and secondary levels differ in their expectations of the reading program

Fitzgerald, Thomas P.

English

L'article détaille certaines stratégies patrimoniales fondées sur l'application de l'article 238 bis K du CGI et les précautions à prendr

Leroy, Michel

Toulouse Capitole Publications

Actualité des stratégies fiscales fondées sur l'article 238 bis K du CGI

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 18Issue 1 October 1977 Article 410-1-1977Increasing Communication BetweenAdministrators and Reading PersonnelThomas P. FitzgeraldAlbany, New YorkFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationFitzgerald, T. P. (1977). Increasing Communication Between Administrators and Reading Personnel. Reading Horizons: A Journal ofLiteracy and Language Arts, 18 (1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol18/iss1/4INCREASING COMMUNICATIONBETWEEN ADMINISTRATORS ANDREADING PERSONNELThomas P. FitzgeraldBUREAU OF READING EDUCATIONSTATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ALBANY, NEW YORKWhat do administrators believe are the strong and weakpoints in theirdistrict's reading program? How do they evaluate the performance andcapabilities of reading personnel? Do principals at the elementary andsecondary levels differ in their expectations of the reading program?These questions were raised recently in a survey of elementary andsecondary administrators in New York State in the hope that this information would assist in developing needed training programs for administrators and teachers.With tight budgets and reduced staffs putting additional pressures onadministrators, reading personnel must assume a role of providing information to administrators about reading components, newmaterials, newtechniques and needed programatic changes. Although administratorswould like to function as the initiators and coordinators of curriculumchange, in reality many are forced to operate chiefly as business managersand community relations specialists. Reading personnel might enhanceboth their own positions and the reading program, if they would serve as aprimary source of information for their administrators.This survey was completed to outline the needs, concerns and perceptions of administrators with regard to the reading program. Interviewswere conducted in ten districts selected to sample districts of various sizes,locations and economic conditions.Table 1 depicts how the administrators at the elementary and secondarylevel respond to seven questions about reading in their respective districts.Percent of Administrators RespondingHigh School ElementaryReading Program Yes No Yes NoIs the present program adequate? 14 86 57 43Is a written descriptionof program available? 57 43 71 29Is the program reviewedregularly? 29 71 86 14Is there a procedure forreviewing new information? 57 43 57 43Is the program learnercentered? 29 71 57 43I  I   INISTRAT RS           l   I  , ,     i istr t r  di      eak i ts   istrict's  r ?    l t     i    el?        iC'v     m      ti s re i d tly       r            -ti  ld    t'     -     t           el t     mi i  -     [X)Tle                       ,  t            it               ,   l               iC'te     ,   -i s       i   r ie s      iC'ctc   le i ts   ,       ts   t rs   r   r  l   c  tio s    ir tive  t f t r  i    l t rv i  r gram  o  o I  t e r s t r r  t ?     I   ritten ri ti  f r r  ila le?     I  the r r  re ie e  r l rl      I  t ere a r ce re for revie ing ne  i f r ati ?    3 I  t e r ra  lear er centered? 29 7  57 4  20 rhIs there a regular staffdevelopment program?Is there a need forcomprehensive planning?14 86100 057 43100 0Both groups of administrators agreed that a need existed for comprehensive planning but they differed on what such planning shouldgenerate. Those at the elementary level wanted various program components coordinated into one program. At the secondary level, theypreferred that the continuity of the reading program from elementary to secondary should be delineated and emphasized. The majorityof administrators acknowledged that some written statement of thegoals, methods and skills ofthereading program existed andthat provisionswere not made for a regular, coordinated staff development program. Bothgroups were equally divided on whether the district had a policy fordisseminating new reading information. Those who answered yes to thisquestion said it was the responsibility of the reading coordinator.The data indicated that the two groups differed substantially on fourresponses: the adequacy of the program; the existence of a regular reviewof the program; the presence of a learner centered approach; and a systematic program for staff development. In some instances, administratorsfrom the same district responded differently to questions about districtpolicies which indicates that certain district policies are not clearly defined.Three topics were discussed during the interview which focused on thestrengths and weaknesses of reading teachers and classroom teachers asperceived by principals in the areas of classroom techniques, personalcharacteristics and peer group relations (Figure 1). Generally, elementaryprincipals tended to question the adequacy of pre-service training; first, toteach basic skills; second, to provideextended practice teachingexperience;and third, to encourage individualizationof the instructional programs. Onthe other hand, secondary administrators expressed their feelings ofinadequacy when asked to evaluate reading programs butdidrecognize theneed for more creative approaches to comprehension instruction.They alsoquestioned thevalue of reading class separated from content instruction.In their evaluations, secondary principals stressed the motivational,creative aspects of the reading teachers' job when working with eitherstudents or content area teachers. The elementary administrators tended toemphasize a knowledge about the total language process as one positiveteacher quality and identified the inability to both diagnose and prescribeinstruction as areas in need of improvement. Both groups of administratorsrecognized that reading specialists were hampered by a lack of time andauthority when called upon to serve as a resource person or to implementstaff training programs.The results of this survey indicated that in-service workshops shouldfocus on the separate needs of administrators and teachers at the secondaryand elementary levels. It alsoprovides a listing of administrator's needs foradditional information.o-rh Is there a regular staff develop ent progra ? Is t here a need for ( (Imprc c iY<' planning? 14 100 86 57 43 o 100 o oth roups of ad i istrators agreed th t a need existed f  co -rehensive lanning ut they iffered n at such lanning should rate. ose at t  ele entary level ted various rogram co -e ts r inated into ne rogra . t the secondary level, they referred t  t  tinuity  the reading r Tam fro  le -t ry t  dary l   lineated d i .  j rity f i tr t rs  t t  itten tate ent f t e ls, s  ills  t  ing ra  isted  t  isions re     .  t  l p t   s  lly i ed  r  rict   icy r ting   r i .   red    i  i     ity   i  . e   t        :     :      i         \c   :   -    c c c    .                    c          i      "    \\"(';! l1('sSCS  c        fX'fcei         .  t i ti     s re ). C           : .   i     i e      .   i i alizati n   t l s.         li s         t i   e  r r  ti e r aches   tr ction.  lso  t e  f  l    t  i   t  l t , r  i  tr ssed t  ti ti l  r t   f t e n'ading t r ' j   r i  it  it r t t   t t  t   l t  i istr t  t  t  p asi   l   t e t t  l  r  as ne sit  t  ali  d i ti  t e i ili  to oth i  d r  i str ti  as areas i  eed f i prove ent. oth r ups f a inistrat rs r i  t t r i  s eciali t  er  er  y a lack f ti   authority hen called upon to ser  as a res r  person or to i ple ent staff training progra s.  results of this sur e  i i t  t t in-service orks  shoul  foc s on the separate nee s of ad inistrat rs and teac er  at the sec ar  and ele entary levels. It also provi s a listing of ad inistrator's needs for additional infor ation. rh -21The topics most frequently identified by secondary administrators asmajor concerns or needs are:• nature of the reading process,• methods and materials for content area reading;• comprehension instruction;• use of reading specialists as resource people; and• motivating change with content teachers.On the other hand, elementary personnel listed different concerns andinterests such as:• designing staff training sessions for diagnosing, prescribing andcomprehension instruction• evaluating material and programs• effective methods of using staff for in-service.Finally, reading specialists might write a proposal to generate a regularprogram review and a comprehensive reading plan. Both areas wereidentified by administrators as needed. As reading teachers assume a moreactive role in planning district goals and policies, effective readingprograms should continue their development even in this age of restrictededucational spending.Figure 1Administrators' Perceptions ofReading PersonnelSecondary PrincipalsStrengths1. Classroom techniques—ability to locateappropriate materialability to motivatestudents personallyPersonal characteristics- willing to devote timeand effort to assignmentsanxious to continue professional improvement3. Peer group relationsrecognized as havingnecessary trainingwilling to share materialsand ideasWeaknessesdifficulty teachingbasic decoding skillsinability to creativelydesign programslack of self-disciplinefor records and planninglack of imaginationlack of authority to actas resourcelack of confidence inworking with peers-   t   t  i ti    i i t t   j     :  t   t  i    t   tc i l                       ,                                        i li ts          i               s           ls  li i s, t                   z'nistr t , tz'   eadz'    z'nd    r   ---           2.   lling        -    -i l  r     l ti  i   i  r  t i i  illi  t   t i l   i  e .lm  -- i        ativd  i   -   i   r s   --  f  l  f t it  t  t   -la   i  i  \\ l i g  h en  22~rhElementary Principals1. Classroom techniquesbasic knowledge of readingprocessinstructional skills- knowledge of materialsPersonal characteristics- ability to achieve insmall groupsdemonstration of interestand motivation for workPeer group relationsability to motivatestaff developmentwillingness to sharematerial and methodslack of expertise topicsciibe leinedidtionlack of achievement whenworking on comprehension- lack of skills in diagnosing—tries to accomplish toomuchlack of positive personalityand "housekeeping" skillslack of time to workwith stafflack of service tooffer staff-  le t r  Clp l  . l r  t i  sic l  f r i  i t ti l ill   f  2.                3.    h v           lack f rtise t  fJlc~Lliuc ICIIICciidlioll --   i t  i   sion - ·  f   i  --      --                     

Increasing Communication Between Administrators and Reading Personnel

Toulouse  1 Capitole Publications

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2263&amp;context=reading_horizons

Increasing Communication Between Administrators and Reading Personnel

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Toulouse Capitole Publications

ScholarWorks at WMU

Toulouse 1 Capitole Publications