Literacy is All

Economic Woes and Access to Literacy

Four experiences of my last twelve hours has led me to wonder about education's concept of "access to literacy."  These cases involving elementary schools through colleges reveal a shared mindset.
Given these times of economic woes, this mindset defies my understanding.

A colleague, who serves as a reading specialist in a blue-collar suburban district, complained that the district teachers no longer have the instructional time for guided reading instruction because the district had just adopted a new literature anthology for grades two through six. In spite of the best efforts and arguments of reading specialists and classroom teachers the change had been made at great expense to the district. As a result the crammed book rooms of leveled guided reading texts were gathering dust. The purchase included copious supplemental materials that now consumed the students' learning time; the students had little time for actual reading ; some students were bored by the redundant and repetitious work and some students were totally frustrated. No consideration was given to the fact that students would no longer receive instruction at their instructional level and some students would have no access to the materials because they currently  could not read the text. The rationale for this decision was that now every student would have exposure to the same background knowledge.

So much for research-based decision making. As the teacher commented, "If it comes in a brightly colored box and says 'research-based' on the cover, it must work." Quite a wise decision for economic hard-times. High-performing and low performing students have reduced access to literacy with use of a single material. The students and the taxpayers have been well-served by that district.

My second conversation was with a national researcher/presenter.  She had just paid for her college-student-child's books. The bill was over $800.00 for five courses with one text costing over $165.00.  texts cannot be purchased used, or sold back at the end of a course, because a new edition is used by professors every semester. Additionally, the information is all available for free on-line BUT students must own the text.  This is not the first parent I have heard complain.  Several members of my family have recently had a similar experience. I have read that professors in some colleges get "kick-backs" from publishers (remind you of the current revelations from Washington and Wall Street). 

Whose needs are being served?  Do students have better access to current information, diverse viewpoints and multiple perspectives?  Are parents helped with the heavy burden of college expenses?  Does the college itself receive additional bequests from alumni or research grants from foundations? Sounds like a greedy few are abusing the trust of their "stockholders" or "customers."

My third contact was with a district level director of ELA. He had just been asked to purchase 95 additional copies of Dickens Tale of Two Cities so every ninth grader in the building could read it at the same time. What a move backward from using multiple texts involving a common theme, or common literary elements or representing a common genre. What a move away from giving students some choice based on interests and needs. Was there anything in the research to suggest that narrowing students' choices would narrow the gaps in their achievement? Was there any indication, based on research or previous experience, that student learning needs would be better served?  Who  was the decision intended to support? What essential student learning would be supported by this expense? The teachers wanted every ninth grader to read Tale of Two Cities so they could base their mid-term test on the text!

The fourth example involves an urban district that "excessed" hundreds of middle school and high school texts.  These were not old, dog-eared, tattered, torn, well-read texts.  Many of the boxes of multiple texts had never been opened. They had been ordered by a Central Office Administration. In some cases they were never distributed to the buildings. In some cases the titles were not appropriate for the taught curriculum. In some cases the teachers were not made aware that the texts were available for their classroom use. Just like in Washington and on Wall Steet there is finger pointing and load disclaimers of responsibility. But the public's money has been spent - this district has requested and received "bail-out" funds from the state for the last five years.

Our economic woes did not reduce the students' access to literacy in these cases. However, the students' access to literacy was not supported by these expenditures. Precious funds were wasted without increasing the access to literacy or utilizing technology. That is the pity.  Our economic woes will impact the funds we have for education. We are not serving the public well when we fund antiquated and ineffective practices; we are not serving the learner when we fund practices that are neither engaging nor successful.

Edison Schools Make Sense

Edison Schools’ ad in Education Week (February 28, 2007) captures what has been widely known for years.  “Might students become better readers if we gave them more engaging and substantive content – and spent less time ‘teaching reading’?”  Let’s see, Richard Allington made that the basis of What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs (Longman, 2001).   Indeed, I can’t think of any recent literacy commentary, treatise or study that hasn’t mentioned that actual reading is the only way to become a proficient reader. 

The Edison Schools’ ad also questions “Could it be that drilling students in reading skills has resulted in less time devoted to the content areas – and thus less time to develop the contextual knowledge students need to make sense of what they’re reading?”  Profound!  Wonder why so many educators and parents missed the obvious.  Let’s surge further down that conduit of insightfulness.  Could that also be a reason for the headline on the front of Education Week “Scores on National Tests Remain Disappointing”?  If we continue to waste our students time in mindless drill, be it reading or math, and mind-numbing lecture about what the teacher thinks and knows, be it history, science or literature, we lose the time to engage students in authentic and practical application.

If Edison promises to engage students, whatever the age of the student, in thought provoking reading, conversation and writing, then perhaps we should give them the contract for public education.  How many more schools have to fail our students before we hire a new contractor?

Who Needs Private Schools and Ivy League Colleges?

Mid-September saw two challenges to tradition: a private school education is superior to that from a public institution, and an Ivy League college education is necessary for a leadership position in the business world.  The September 15, 2006 Wall Street Journal noted that a growing number of parents and their children are “Opting Out of Private School.”  Not only is there noticeable movement from private school to public schools, particularly top-scoring schools in affluent areas, but interest and enrollment in private schools is showing a decline.  One reason cited is the rising cost of private education.  Another issue is the competition that private school students experience so that it may be difficult to “stand out.” Additionally, private school students sometimes have less time and opportunity for the extracurricular that develop those individual talents and interests. A third issue are the studies showing that standardized test results of private and public school students are not substantially different.  For some parents a fourth issue is the trend of colleges to enroll fewer private school students and increased numbers from the public schools.  In the plus column, public schools are offering more Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes to increase academic rigor.

There are notable similarities on the collegiate scene with a movement away from the high profile, Ivy League colleges. Will any college do?  Many parents and their children believed that the investment in a prestigious, Ivy League college was a necessary ingredient to opening the doors to success in the future.  Not so. Time posed the question on its August 21, 2006 cover, “Who Needs Harvard?”  and on September 18, 2006, The Wall Street Journal declared “what counts in the CEO’s chair is leadership talent and a drive for success.”

Many CEOs, according to the Journal, attended state universities and less-known private colleges.  These individuals, often the first in their family to attend college, had the opportunity to become a campus leader, to forge strong relationships with people from diverse backgrounds and to be mentored and supported by excellent teachers; a possibility to be found, or not, in any educational setting. It was these experiences that helped them ascend the corporate ladder. 

Time’s more thorough and detailed report makes several important points.  In the “new world” not attending Harvard will not matter and may not be in a student’s best interests. Since new fields of employment emerge daily and people change jobs numerous times over their career, the sustained networking factor of college is less applicable. Studies show that graduates from less prestigious schools are earning as much 20 years later as their peers from Ivy Leagues.  The opportunities and educational learning options at many schools are far more inviting and exciting to a generation who has often thrived in an environment made rich by technology.  The professors at small, less prestigious colleges are often less involved with research and more involved with teaching and their students.  Students in smaller schools have more opportunities to relate to and interact with their professors which afford a superior educational experience.  Smaller schools often cater to more specialized interests and learning styles.