I've read with interest your very interesting and relevant conversation about scripted programs and would like to share my thoughts. The most troubling issue, probably too obvious problem to even mention is that, by definition, no script or program or pre-planned lesson can be directly responsive to the immediate needs of the children any one of us serves.
I'm also concerned about the proliferation of these programs because of what they seem to indicate about teachers' knowledge base and professionalism. What assumptions do the programs and those who purchase them make about teachers' knowledge of reading theory and therefore, their ability to make timely, relevant instructional decisions? Obviously, they assume a very uneven (some teachers have superb knowledge base and others have big holes in their theoretical background due largely to the institutions where they did pre-service and graduate work) knowledge base among our colleagues. Here's the tricky question - DO we know enough to make those decisions? Really? Of course, I believe that our colleagues who interact on this list serv and many, many of those with whom we work, do know reading theory and can make the best decisions for their students on a day -to-day basis. The question that is more troubling to me relates to those teachers, who, through no fault of their own, have not had adequate background in reading theory. What do we believe about those colleagues? Reading research is not exactly reader-friendly nor is it very accessible for many in our field. How do we access the research and make sense of it when there are, quite simply, thousands of studies over decades, some of which are well done and others not? I believe this is exactly the question that leads many schools and districts to take the easy (though far more perilous) road. They simply make up for uneven by purchasing a program. One can almost see them dusting their hands of the problem with a quick "whew, that's taken care of". This is exactly why I wrote To Understand. I believe that those of us who no longer have daily classroom responsibilities owe it to our colleagues to stay abreast of the research and to present it in a manageable (we hope!!) and understandable way to colleagues who, by virtue of their daily responsibilities with children don't have the time or access to digest dozens of studies each year. For example, the What's Essential model in To Understand is a synthesis of decades of research on the most essential elements in reading content/curriculum that distills the studies I've read over the last 20 years or so related to what we should teach when we teach reading. Others have distilled other areas of the research and created models to help practitioners understand research trends and theoretical premises. Do I wish that our profession supported opportunities for all professionals to read and digest research? Of course I do, but that simply isn't realistic and I can't imagine how it ever will be. Those of us whose practice has taken us out of the classroom simply, in my view, have a responsibility to make this information available and create opportunities to discuss it on behalf of our colleagues. Will knowledge of the research lead to the demise of these programs? Of course it will not, but it will arm teachers with the knowledge base they need to argue thoughtfully and professionally with district policy makers when they are edging toward the decision to purchase a program. If we can provide the knowledge support for teachers to make their case I believe we can stave off many of these troubling decisions. I apologize for the length of this missive, but I feel strongly about the topic you're discussing now and wanted to share my thinking. With deep respect for all of you, ellin keene _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
