OK for Scarsdale, Off Limits to City Kids

From my first days as a teacher, I felt the the key to reading well was an interest and joy in reading.

So, what comes first? An enriched curriculum that will create a need to read or a skill-based reading program based on a data and accountability program? Scarsdale, the gold standard of school districts, increasingly pushes the boundary in the direction of enrichment.

An article in Sunday's NY Times, Scarsdale Adjusts to Life Without Advanced Placement Courses, talks about the change from a focus on teaching to the Advanced Placement Tests toward a more enriched curriculum in AP courses.

A handful of exclusive private schools, including Ethical Culture Fieldston, Dalton and Calhoun in New York City, have abolished Advanced Placement courses in recent years, but Scarsdale has set a precedent for high-achieving public schools.

A year after Scarsdale became the most prominent school district in the nation to phase out the College Board’s Advanced Placement courses — and make A.P. exams optional — most students and teachers here praise the change for replacing mountains of memorization with more sophisticated and creative curriculums.

Bruce G. Hammond, executive director of the Independent Curriculum Group, a network of private schools that do not teach to standardized tests, said that many private and public schools chafed under the limitations of Advanced Placement courses, and would drop them if not for opposition from parents.

Now comparing AP courses in Scarsdale with the way kids in the inner city are being taught in the test and data driven world of the NYC school system may look like a classic case of trying to compare apples to oranges.

I don't agree. I have heard Joel Klein and his minions talk about equity and the civil rights struggle of our times. But when challenged about the narrow casting of the curriculum that has resulted from his data and accountability emphasis, he has said that first kids need to read well before they can take full advantage of an enriched curriculum.

I beg to differ.

The primary motivation in reading development is a need to read and many kids who struggle don't feel that need. Reading in a world of test prep equals tedium and with the pressure and threats of being left back added, becomes an often joyless exercise.

Build an enriched curriculum and they will come. And improve their reading in surprising ways. Of course, there are often some techinical issues, like poor phonics, that may interfere in the process, but those are relatively easy to solve.

Reading well is based so much on vocabulary, which expands in the context of experiential learning. Poor vocabulary development is one of the major gaps in the so-called achievement gap and it takes years to overcome.

The lessons about test prep being learned in Scarsdale (a system run by real educators – would they ever pick a Joel Klein for Superintendent?) should be applied to a broader base.

The Klein/Leibman model denies urban kids the same kinds of opportunities given to wealthier kids by restricting their learning to things that can be measured, leading to the creation of an even larger gap.

Talk about lack of equity. Bringing the apples and oranges of the inner city and the wealthy suburbs into alignment is the true civil rights issue of our times.

Sol Stern misses the boat...

...in his Marshall Plan for reading in K-3 as he turns to a narrow view of reading methodology as a solution to whatever gap is being discussed. He talks about decoding and pushes his beloved "Success for All" program, a rigidly defined program that allows little flexibility for teachers.

I mentored Teaching Fellows who used this program and what it was really about was reducing class size by taking the entire school's resources - all out of classroom teachers - and for an hour an a half a day cutting the size of reading groups into more manageable chunks.

Reading doesn't just start with phonemic and phonic awareness but with speech - lots of it. And having stories read to kids an an early age.

The concept of balanced literacy which he is so critical of, actually has some sound theory behind it in addressing some of these issues but was implemented by Klein's non-educators in a destructive way. It also requires small, manageable classes, something Klein doesn't believe in.

Another factor was their rigidity - kids that did need phonics were denied it in the early years. I was in one class where one of the children was not able to function in the BL program and kept the teacher preoccupied while she was clearly needed to be circulating to make it work for the rest of the class. As her mentor I recommended she give him some kind of workbook so the other kids wouldn't lose out. "We're not allowed" she said. Okaaay!

I agree we should have a Marshall Plan for the schools. But covering only up to the 3rd grade (don't we see the enormous slippage between 4th and 8th grade scores) will be a drop in the bucket.

It is good to finally see Stern acknowledge the benefits of lower class size, which he used to pooh pooh. But if he thinks starting a reading program in kindergarten will do the trick, he is mistaken. By that time many kids need one to one assistance (Reading Recovery addresses some of this).

Open up schools for parents to bring their 2 year olds to be read to. Strengthen local libraries and run programs for very young children. Arrange for trips. It is the bigger bolder approach to the whole child before they enter school. Any Marshall Plan should attempt to diminish the language gap by pre-school.

The key ingredient in reading improvement is getting kids to enjoy reading. No easy task, especially when programs like Success for All and test prep often end up making the reading experience akin to taking a daily does of Castor oil.