Reading curriculums that are not based on the National Reading Panel research are not considered credible curriculums by teachers and schools.
http://www.clicknkids.com/Public/ProgramDescription5.asp
I was doing some research on an author I had heard speak, Dr. J. Ron Nelson, when I came across the above quote. The site indicates that Dr.Nelson helped develop the phonics program the site was selling. In light of our class work, the quote reallyc aused me to stop and ponder. Who determines what is a 'credible curriculum'? According to this site, I guess the National ReadingPanel is the only perspective to take into account when instructing reading. I am flumoxed by the audacity of the statement.
It also worries me. As teachers, we are so busy with the day to day workings of the classroom, that often we accept a program as the curriculum and don't critically deconstruct it to see what has influenced it. I know I didn't have the time to do that when I was in the classroom. I pulled what I liked from the program, as well as the prov. curriculum documents, and created my own curriculum. Scary thought? Kind of, but I also think it was effective. Probably lots of room for improvement, but my students were generally happy, learned, and made satisfactory growth throughout the year.
But now programs claim to be based on research, on 'best' practice, on consultations with experts,.... on the National Reading Panel. It all sounds so intimidating that we as teachers could easily jump on their bandwagon of promises.
So what does that do to my role as a consultant? Should I be a leader who says "use this program....this strategy...this practice" and expect to be listened to without challenge? Some teachers do say to me, "Just tell me what to do." Our division has not had a history of doing that. They have left it up to individual schools to determine what is best for them. Maybe it's time to be a bit proactive in light of the large amount of information, 'experts' and programs available with very little teacher time for analysis and reflection????
It also worries me. As teachers, we are so busy with the day to day workings of the classroom, that often we accept a program as the curriculum and don't critically deconstruct it to see what has influenced it. I know I didn't have the time to do that when I was in the classroom. I pulled what I liked from the program, as well as the prov. curriculum documents, and created my own curriculum. Scary thought? Kind of, but I also think it was effective. Probably lots of room for improvement, but my students were generally happy, learned, and made satisfactory growth throughout the year.
But now programs claim to be based on research, on 'best' practice, on consultations with experts,.... on the National Reading Panel. It all sounds so intimidating that we as teachers could easily jump on their bandwagon of promises.
So what does that do to my role as a consultant? Should I be a leader who says "use this program....this strategy...this practice" and expect to be listened to without challenge? Some teachers do say to me, "Just tell me what to do." Our division has not had a history of doing that. They have left it up to individual schools to determine what is best for them. Maybe it's time to be a bit proactive in light of the large amount of information, 'experts' and programs available with very little teacher time for analysis and reflection????
1 comment:
JoAnne, I can't see you endorsing something that you don't believe in, but there's always room for growth?? I really have liked these classes because they introduced me to new ideas. They're maybe not so new for you, but even if you take away a nugget of an idea, you'd be a better consultant?? And I'm sure that you're a pretty good one already, but that as you grow personally, you're be even better in your job. I know that as a pharmacist, I'm better now then when I first graduated. I've forgotten most of what I was taught, but I've maybe grown as a person? Thanks for all your help in this area in the last 2 years. darcy
Post a Comment