February 2004 Table of Contents In this Issue Cover Story Features Getting Organized NEAFT Retirement People Last Bell ESP Health & Fitness Spotlight Departments Editor's Note President's Viewpoint Up Front Rights Watch State Report Leading the Way Debate Dilemma Resources Books by NEA Members Online Change Your Address/ Write a Letter Past Issues

Advertise in NEA Today!

Beyond the Same Old Drill

NEA President Reg Weaver

Sustained" and "thoughtful" are two terms not likely used when we consider ways to improve schools serving disadvantaged and minority children. We seem content with the educational quick fix instead of providing for all our children what they need to receive the quality public education they deserve.

And nowhere is this approach more apparent than in teaching reading skills.

Reading First, a part of the new federal education law, was supposed to represent a bold promise—all children would be able to read by the third grade. It's a goal that NEA shares, along with the law's overall goals to ensure academic achievement; to ensure every child has a highly qualified teacher in every classroom; and to hold high expectations for every student. In spite of the laudable goals of Reading First, its emphasis on "scientifically based reading research" is easily perceived to mean using a one-size-fits-all approach to teach reading, especially in schools serving disadvantaged and minority children. Sound familiar?

Of course, if we are to be guided by the best research, then we must acknowledge what studies consistently make clear—that no one approach or program works for all students.

In too many instances, choices of what to include in reading programs are based solely on test-driven instruction. Those choices often ignore the need to develop students' ability to comprehend complex texts and to read critically. There is nothing that says "lowered expectations" like dumbed-down reading drills masquerading as reform. And there is nothing that says "lowered expectations" like ignoring the unique strengths and abilities of children in favor of the right test score.

Let's be clear: children learn to read in different ways. For some children, identifying words is easy and comprehending what they mean is a challenge, but for others, learning phonemes—the sounds out of which words are made—is a challenge, making the identification of words difficult. Different strengths and needs call for different instruction. A rigorous reading program for students would include reading books independently, and in a teacher-led format, discussing books that have been read and writing assignments based on reading material. Such a program would also include the vital work of librarians, whose work not only enhances the classroom experience but also teaches valuable research skills.

And the research couldn't be clearer on another point—teachers are crucial to promote effective learning from students. Quality teachers are more important than the instructional materials to develop able readers.

So given all that we know, why would we ever want to "teacher-proof" reading curricula underneath the guise of providing standardized programs?

That sentiment is beyond comprehension.

When it comes to improving reading skills, it takes strategic and long-term approaches. It takes well-prepared teachers with flexibility to adapt to student needs. And it takes access to books and promoting reading as a personal habit. So, as we mark NEA's Read Across America next month, I invite you to have some serious fun as we re-commit ourselves to demonstrating the joys and rewards of reading.

By our example during Read Across America, we are motivating students and helping them apply a range of reading skills to complement their reading instruction. Participating in Read Across America addresses the value and importance of reading in a manner far from the same old drill.