When I started teaching, I was placed in a kindergarten classroom. I went to all of these new teacher orientation meetings, had countless hours of training on teaching literacy, but at the end of the day, no one could tell me how to get someone that has never seen print to read. The trainings focused mostly on children who were all ready reading. When I asked all of these "gurus" in the county, they mostly replied "it just happens". Luckily for me, my first year I had an extremely advanced class. And they did seem to just read. We focused on learning the letter sounds and putting these sounds together to make words and I did A LOT of read alouds. I also did leveled reading but it was a little bit disjointed. All in all though, that class did great. I had 2 5 year olds reading on 3rd grade level, 4 on 2nd grade level, and the rest on middle of the year 1st grade level. For me, this was a big achievement.
My next year, we pretty much ability grouped. My principal knew that I spoke Spanish so I got all of the ESL students and the "low" kids. Well, I had learned some more about reading and felt a little more confident. So, I proceeded like I did before and taught my class in English and in Spanish. Only this time, I saw that about half of the class wasn't comprehending the stories we were reading. I was puzzled at this. I mean, why had the class before had such success? So I looked at the socioeconomic make up of the class. My first year class was filled with parents who were active in their child's schooling. Many were educated and had well respected jobs in the community. My second year class was the complete opposite. Many of these children were very poor, had uneducated families, or were being raised by grandmas and grandpas that did their best, but who had been out of school for a long time. This made me wonder about what they were understanding. When I did read a louds, only a handful commented. So one day, I decided to take each student back individually and ask them about a book. It was a simple book about a little girl going to the grocery store with her dad. What I found was remarkable! Many of the students, the non-ESL students, had no idea where the story was taking place. They didn't know the vegetables or the fruit. They referred to the man as an uncle, grandpa, or friend. They had no experiences to base the text on. So, in order to help the children, I started to bring in simple items and pictures to help build their vocabulary and experience bank. I read a lot of non-fiction texts to try and broaden their horizon. We did a lesson on the supermarket and I showed them fruits and vegetables and let them taste them so that they could understand. Until then, I had never thought about what it would be like to not have experienced these things. How could I describe a banana if I had never tasted one in my life? How could I write about the beach if I had never seen one or discussed one?
For me, this rationalization shows why standardized testing is so grossly unfair. If you only use these quantitative measures to measure what a child knows, than you won't get a very good response from a child who hasn't had enough experiences in life. Present them with a topic that they have been exposed to, or have lived through, you can get anything you need out of them. That is why I now try to use a lot of books with very vivid pictures. This really helps a child connect. Like for black history month, we wer talking about segregation. Now, most of my children have never experienced this, but they do know what it is like to be singled out and be mistreated. So, I used this experience to help show the pain that African Americans went through during segregation and explained that they suffered only because of their skin color. Boy, that helped them to assimilate their experiences. Many were pretty much outraged and the discussion that came out of that was so powerful and moving. I think if we connected more topics to the personal experiences of our children, quantitative or qualitative, the outcome would be much better.
Whitney Gilbert
Comments (8)
Whitney,
Yes, I agree, teachers have to know their students to really be able to teach them. I wish our school board members and lawmakers spent a little more time getting to know our students before they made policy. I think that the quantitative research helps policy makers to "know" our students better. Hopefully, if they understand the children, they will write policies that benefit our students. Our system is too driven by testing data without an understanding of the children and what they need.
Posted by Jayne Thompson | February 13, 2009 8:10 PM
Posted on February 13, 2009 20:10
Whitney,
I’m so glad that those students were a part of your classroom. You took the time to actually find out what made the comprehension of the stories so difficult for them. I think that many of our students come to our schools lacking the experiences that many of their teachers have taken for granted. It seems logical for me to think that all children would know about the beach because I know about the beach. I have spent every summer at the beach but that is because I came from a family that had the opportunity and resources to take us to the beach. However, once I talked to them more and got to know them, I realized that they had been places and seen things that I had never experienced. I realized that they knew about different parts of the world that I had never known which allowed our classroom to richer. So I too wish that policymakers would spend some time in our schools talking to our children. If they spent just a few days with our children they would be able to see how much they know and how much they want to know and maybe they would begin to look for other ways for our students to show it.
Posted by Amie Snow | February 14, 2009 8:26 AM
Posted on February 14, 2009 08:26
Taking the time to really get to know your students pays off in ways we can never imagine. Too many times I have heard teachers blaming the parents for their students lack of experiences or exposure to things like books. Instead of blaming them and thinking there is nothing we can do, more teachers need to be proactive like you. To take the time to find out what the kids know about and then to help create as many new experiences for them in the classroom and through books. Because the truth is that although we hope there will be change in the test taking policies we have right now our students are still faced with taking the tests every year.
Amy Spade
Posted by Amy Spade | February 15, 2009 4:35 PM
Posted on February 15, 2009 16:35
You are absolutly correct! So many times, while teaching Social Studies, I have been surprised by student's responses. Many of the lower class kids have not had "basic" experiences (or at least what most would consider basic). I have had kids who have never been to the mall, or only recently ridden an elevator.
Also, I believe that teachers often forget just how much older they are than the students that they teach. I mean, I am only in my mid-twenties, and I am SO very different than my 7th graders (in terms of music/movie experiences, historical events, etc.). It really shocks me when I hear my kids say that they barely remember 9/11!! They know that it was a tragic event, but they don't have that same "emotional" connection to it as I do. It is almost like my grandmother's generation and Pearl Harbor. That was a very traumatic event for them. I know that it was a turning point in history, but I don't have that personal connection.
Posted by Heather Coe | February 16, 2009 10:47 AM
Posted on February 16, 2009 10:47
It is so interesting that the bulk of your response related to the experiences of our students. One of the most interesting topics I felt that we discussed while in my undergraduate program at Appalachian was standardized testing and how a child's experiences affect scores. Basically, children with no experience with concepts like vacations would not have the same advantages with a passage about summer vacation as wealthy children.
Also, it is true enough with kindergartners that some come with all kinds of reading experiences. Others need much more help. Some have parents who have read to them since they were born every night. They might even watch the films with the books their parents have read them. Others may not have one single book in their entire house. So, through the use of standardized tests, we are not assessing a child's knowledge or potential for knowledge rather where they are at a given moment on a test that is biased in more ways than one. It amazes me that although educators state this point over and over again, others still place a great emphasis on one set of scores.
Posted by Brittany Guy | February 16, 2009 3:18 PM
Posted on February 16, 2009 15:18
Whitney,
Your students are lucky to have a teacher like you. It is amazing what our students can do when we actually take the time to teach them, instead of teach at them. The successful learning moments that you gave them will travel with them for a long time.
On another note, I often wonder if policymakers want to American's public schools fail. I mean they have to know that experience breeds success. They also have to know that there is a high percentage of students that have limited life experiences. So why keep pushing something that doesn't work and continue to leave more and more children behind?
Posted by Anonymous | February 16, 2009 9:30 PM
Posted on February 16, 2009 21:30
The comment above was written by me, Cherrita. In my haste I forgot to sign my name. ;)
Posted by Cherrita Hayden-McMillan | February 16, 2009 9:33 PM
Posted on February 16, 2009 21:33
You're right -- the experience piece is so important. I remember reading about a teacher who tired to teach Robert Frost poetry to Californian, inner city students who had never even seen snow! Your post here really speaks to the importance of early literacy being experience-based. Skill building can't really happen without the contextual schema!
Posted by Alecia Jackson | February 19, 2009 8:30 PM
Posted on February 19, 2009 20:30