Readicide: Chapter 3

Ok, I totally believe in the the Kill a Reader Casserole!  I hated when teachers would rip apart something beautiful and turn it into boring worksheets.  But here's the thing....I want to keep my job.  I'm not sure how well "stupid book" reading would go over to administration.  I read all the time.  It is my hobby.  However, I do not enjoy reading for class (other than this book, which I happen to really like----shocking).  But where this book is lacking (to me) is giving a more practical way to allow some of it's tid-bits to happen in a real classroom.  I only get my kids for 50 minutes (and this is on days that we don't have an assembly or the sports team leaves early.  So basically, I don't see where I can incorporate 20 minutes of "fun" reading in my classroom.  Sure, it builds vocabulary, but I can only get away with that line for so long.  Furthermore, I have learned through summer reading books, that Sparknotes and movies or utilized more often than the actual book.  Implementation....what can we do?

Readicide: Chapter 2

Ok, this chapter didn't tick me off the way chapter 1 did.  This chapter started giving solutions instead of just listing problems.  I liked the comparison of reading to airplane window.  Taking it further, I am a white knuckle flyer.  I prefer to leave said airplane window down because seeing a small strip of air just freaks me out.  However, if planes had bigger windows and I could see more, I know I wouldn't be as freaked out.  I would know where we were in the air and would have a better perspective.  Similarly, we need to give our students a 'better perspective'.  I don't want to teach something I consider boring any more than they want to read something boring. 

In the issue of "word poverty", the gap that "forms before students even start school snowballs once school begins (32)."  When talking about a deficit of millions of words lacked, can we even make a dent?  Just like with the cartoon, our kids can 'read' words on a page, but do they even understand?  And if they understand, can they analyze for deeper meaning?  If they can analyze, can they synthesize what they have learned with what they already know to build deeper knowledge?  Who knows? 

Another thing: our kids expect instant gratification. Chapter 2 points this out citing the internet as one of the reasons for this.  I agree completely!  Kids today can find the answer to just about any question they have by searing for it on their Iphone.  Knowlegde is getting lost in translation.  And, by the way, which of you has time in class to have a little SSR?  And how would administration react to that??

Chapter 2 basically comes down to that fact that practice makes perfect.  Of course, the more you read, the better you are at it.  It's our job to make the kiddos WANT to practice:)

Chapter 1: Readicide

Hi everyone; this is Kristen.  Before getting into the chapter, I need to say that I teach at a private school.  I do not understand the pressure of "teaching to the test" because we do not have a test in the spring to determine whether we have taught all the standards.  In this blog, I use "we" as a teacher---public or private.

After reading this chapter, I am struck by how much teaching seems to be a Catch 22.  We all get into teaching to actually teach, and maybe (hopefully) make an impact on our students.  However, teachers are so regulated that it seems impossible to make this desired impact.  With so many standards, we are not able to imerse our kids in the education we are trying to provide for them.  This chapter begins by questioning the "depth" we are able to achieve.  In fact, "students are so busy covering a vast and wide curriculum that little, if any, deeper thinking is occuring (14)."  There's no time for deeper thinking; we need to keep our jobs. 

The Paige Paradox seems to be a brutal cycle, keeping students down and teachers "demoralized".  What I kept thinking during this section was, "Why bother?"  Are we all just hitting our heads against the Board (of Education)?  Teaching kids how to take scantron tests give us "higher test scores and lower thinkers (21).  Are we actually teaching kids just to be stupid once they head into the real world? 

I cannot pretend to know much about No Child Left Behind because I don't.  However, I do know that friends of mine who have recently entered into teaching at public schools around Middle Georgia often have over 30 kids in their first class, as well as often have the lower level kids of that grade.  So I have noticed at least one of the problems as to why the gap is not closing with the reading scores.  Teaching is hard.  Teaching in that kind of environment right out of the gate has got to be darn near impossible (hats off to those of you who do). 

I don't know how to fix readicide.  From reading this first chapter, it seems to be an impossible task.  Maybe the rest of the book has a plan....