|
COPYRIGHT 2004 International Reading Association Inc.
Schools across the United States have redoubled their efforts to improve student achievement and meet the goals established by the No Child Left Behind Act, namely the provision that students and schools make adequate yearly progress. At the secondary school level, teachers and administrators have focused on ensuring that students can read and that they understand what they read. Unfortunately, less attention has been focused on providing students time to read and ensuring that they do read. Given the increased pressure for student performance, teachers and administrators question the use of every instructional minute and wonder if providing students with time to read is a wise investment. The purpose of this article is to examine the journey an urban high school took as the teachers and administrators struggled with the question of time--specifically time devoted to free voluntary reading. Starting with a single comment made by a student, which led to committee work and significant policy changes, the chronology of resuscitating free voluntary reading is explored.
The beginnings of change--A student comment
Sometimes a student asks a question or makes a comment that triggers significant policy change. This is one such case. Miana (all student names are pseudonyms) stopped her English teacher from the previous year in the hall one afternoon. She had recently had her schedule changed and was in a different fourth-period class. This meant that her 20-minute Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) period was also with a different teacher. She told her English teacher that her new fourth-period teacher started class instead of letting them read. She continued, "My mom doesn't let me just read at home. I can do my math homework or write my essays, but she yells at me if I'm just reading. She wants me to watch my brothers and sisters or clean the house. The only time that I ever got to read was during 4-R [the SSR period]. Now that's taken away from me." Miana made several important observations that day. For one, she noticed that not all teachers were implementing SSR. She also noted the importance of reading time--time that is especially valuable for students in urban schools who may not have a place or the resources to read texts of their choice outside of school. Little did she know that her strategic comment would trigger a renewed focus on SSR and generate discussion schoolwide.
Support for independent reading time
Free Voluntary Reading, Sustained Silent Reading (SSR), Drop Everything And Read (DEAR), and Independent Reading have been recommended as ways to engage students in reading on their own (e.g., Jensen & Jensen, 2002; Wiesendanger & Birlem, 1984; Worthy, Turner, & Moorman, 1998). While there are distinctions among each of these methods, all of them involve students selecting texts and reading during school. Researchers and teachers have argued that scheduling specific time for students to read can increase reading skills and have a positive impact on students' attitudes toward reading (Akmal, 2002; Dwyer & Reed, 1989). Perhaps the staunchest supporter of independent reading time is Krashen (1993), who maintained that free voluntary reading is the most effective tool available for increasing a child's ability to read, write, spell, and comprehend.
In terms of students' perspectives, Ivey and Broaddus (2001) noted that independent reading time was important for middle school students. In fact, 63% of the 1,765 middle school students they surveyed indicated that independent reading time was their favorite activity in class. The value of free voluntary reading time has been noted in other studies as well (e.g., Stewart, Paradis, Ross, & Lewis, 1996). This evidence led Ivey (2002) to make three recommendations for content area teachers: Collect real books and other content-rich materials, read aloud to students, and provide time for independent reading.
However, the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) could not document the effectiveness of independent reading time and thus concluded, "It would be difficult to interpret this collection of studies [the 14 that met their inclusion criteria] as representing clear evidence that encouraging students to read more actually improves reading achievement" (p. 3-26). Thus school teams are left with a dilemma--should instructional time be devoted to free voluntary reading programs such as SSR or DEAR? Teachers and administrators in urban schools are even more plagued by this question as they are often aware of a significant number of students who cannot read at home because they do not have access to books or the environment is not conducive to reading. The remainder of this article focuses on the discussions, deliberations, and changes implemented in a high school determined to make a difference in student achievement.
Hoover High School educates just over 2,200 students. Of these students, 75% are English-language learners. Approximately 99% of the student population qualifies for free lunch, a widely accepted measure of poverty. In terms of ethnicity, 54% of the student population is Latino, 21% is African or African American, 20% is Asian or Filipino, and 4% is white. In 1999, Hoover achievement data placed it as the lowest performing school in the county and one of the lowest performing schools in the state. As of 2003, Hoover was no longer the lowest performing high school and ranked around the middle in terms of achievement for high schools in the city (see Fisher, Frey, & Williams, in press).
Of the 120 teachers who work at Hoover, 95% have a current teaching credential, 70% have a graduate degree, and 45% are members of traditionally underrepresented groups. The average teacher at Hoover has been teaching 9.5 years with a range from 1 to 37 years.
In terms of literacy initiatives, Hoover implemented a literacy plan that included a school-wide focus on specific strategies (see Fisher, 2001). Since 1999, Hoover teachers have participated in monthly professional development events focused on incorporating specific content reading strategies into their instructional repertoires, including read-alouds, anticipatory activities, note-taking, graphic organizers, and writing to learn (for more information see Fisher & Frey, 2004). In addition, the school has a full-time peer coach (paid for with Title I funds) who provides in-class support for teachers wanting to improve their practices. The peer coach provides demonstration lessons, organizes professional development sessions, and engages in reflective conversations...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
