When I first looked at this book, the title struck me. I didn't think it was a real word and had to look it up. While it isn't a word, it is a blend which pretty much means the destruction of reading. I thought this was pretty interesting paired with the rest of the title stating that schools themselves are killing reading. Who knew that schools were the ones killing reading. It makes sense because with all of the high stakes testing, more and more reading is crammed into students, and the effect seems negative. In the first chapter he talks about test cheating and how predominant it has become. But it isn't the students who are cheating, its the teachers and administration. They did this because of bonus's, which explains why they did it. This also shows how education has seriously shifted from the student to the political side of the spectrum. What harm is there in fudging some test scores in order to get a bonus? A lot of harm when you get caught it seems. Thinking about this, asked myself why it was happening. The answer I thought of was the high stakes testing and who it affects. The obvious answer is that it affects students the most, but it also affect teachers and other administration. In the case of the "Texas Miracle", and many other school systems during NCLB, teachers jobs rode on their students success. As a teacher candidate I always hear about how education is about the students. But now because it is a political matter, the idea and human nature involved has shifted greatly. While back before education became political, teachers maybe taught for the students. Now their job depends on students achievement. I think it is unwise to believe that most teachers will put students first. Most will put their own safety and security before them. When faced with losing a job, teaching to the test or fudging scores seems like a good option. The game has been created for educators, but now that teachers are playing the game to wisely, they are finding that the game is flawed because it isn't about students but their achievement on paper. This chapter raised a lot of questions for me, mainly questions that he discusses. This takes a very good look at the realistic side of what is really happening in education today.
The metaphor of the airplane seeing the grand canyon but only on one side was a interesting analogy as to how education is only benefiting certain students. The political cartoon in the beginning also struck me as funny yet depressing. The cartoon was the one about the student asking if it was gonna be on the test. This struck me as interesting because I look back at my education as a kid. From what I can remember I don't ever remember worrying about what was gonna be on the test. Maybe i did but don't remember, but I am sure that it wasn't a priority for me. In college i find myself asking if i will be assessed on something. If i hear that something is not gonna be on the test, I don't care what it is. I have developed an attitude where I know I can coast through school with my 3.5 if I pay extra attention to what is required of me. I see this as a good thing and a bad thing. To me, a 3.5 overall is pretty good and I am pleased with myself. I know the minimum, and i know where i can coast comfortably. Is it me or the system that creates that idea in me? I don't know. I am one of those people who has grown accustomed to learning to the test. I don't find it a bad thing but I don't feel challenged most of the time and get pissy when I think about how much class time i have spent coasting and doing 3.5 quality grade work. I am done ranting, for now.
In chapter two, it angered me to read the section about how schools have eliminated novels in order to create more time for testing and test prep. This really shows that schools don't value reading. The "value" word comes across as a buzzword to me. It is a flashy new word that has no meaning. It has no meaning or is immeasurable, but looks good on paper. How much do schools value reading? If schools value reading then why are students force fed classics that possibly turn them off to further reading. I read all sorts of conglomerate book series when i was a kid. probably hundreds. around middle school i stopped and i remember why. "To Kill a Mockingbird". I hated that book with a passion. Living in the South, anti slavery and novels of the such were force fed to us. Where was the value in that? Slavery was wrong and so were Jim crow laws. I agree that teachers should take a stand when it comes to test taking vs. reading. Although, I worry that many teachers will not go this route because it isn't part of the education game. People like Gallagher really care about student success, which makes me happy that there is people like that out there who are willing and do take a stand. After reading this, I found it all very interesting and eye opening for lack of a better word. I looked at myself and asked if i could do this. I don't know, I love reading and writing and have a desire to help people, but I am not sure I would be one to take a stand. While it may seem weird to say, I see myself as a teacher who wants to teach but cares for my own job security first. This book really made me look at myself. Does that mean I shouldn't teach if i am not ready to stand up for preventing readicide? I don't know. As I progress through the ED sequence, I find myself less and less interested than I had started. Books like these really depress me when I think about education. Readicide is the fact of the matter about what is happening. He gives great ways to combat readicide and I hope that they will happen.
I particularly liked the section on over analyzation of texts and novels. Teachers are getting so in depth in texts that it becomes trivial and meaningless what they are looking at. This struck true to me because I have seen it for myself. While in college, it was a image for me to relate. I had a nameless professor who said there was one single important word in the whole book and we essentially analyzed the book around that single aspect. Madness. Were we so deep into the book that we were looking for pennies? maybe. It was a perspective though, and seeing different perspectives is good for honing the skill of reading from different perspectives. The kill-a-reader-casserole was pretty funny, but once again and depressing. Novels lose their original idea when they are taken out of context. I understand that those pulled portions have something that students are supposed to find and interpret. Feeding little bits of texts seems to be becoming the norm for education, but at the same time we value reading. I guess we value reading [when we feel like it and in little spurts].
This book was a good read and i picked up a lot of valid questions that I had ever thought of. Like other texts we have read that give solutions to problems, I really liked it for that reason.. It is easy to find texts about issues and what needs to change but not how to do it. I am one of those people most likely. This book gives real examples with solutions tailored for each situation. It is easy to say don't do it that way, do it the right way. Gallagher gives us the problem and then gives solutions to match each, which I really liked. It wasn't just stock answers, every solution was different because of the circumstances. This is realistic to me because no two problems are the same, so no two solutions will be the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment