Simply, Let Them Read! A Cognate Proposal Diane Dalenberg

Simply, Let Them Read!

A Cognate Proposal

Diane Dalenberg

Sonoma State University

GSO1

March 15, 2012

Simply, Let Them Read! 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….…....p. 4

II. PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE 1) Personal and Professional Growth………………….…………...p. 5 2) The Breadth and Depth of Knowledge (Research)……………...p. 8 3) The Breadth and Depth of Knowledge (Program Area)……..…..p. 11 4) Ability to Critically Analyze Multiple Perspectives ……….…...p. 15

5) Narrative References……………………………………….…….p. 21 III. COGNATE PROPOSAL “Simply, Let Them Read!”…………………………….……….…..p. 22

Cognate Proposal References……………………….….………..…p. 34 IV. APPENDICES Introduction A. Masters of Arts Degree Program Plan

Administrative Credential and Masters in Educational Leadership with a concentration in Reading and Language Development

Coursework in EDEL, EDRL, and EDUC Fall 2010 – Spring 2012

1) Personal and Professional Growth B. The Right to Opt Out – Education Code project

Course: EDEL 583 – School Law Instructor: Dr. Paul Porter, Spring, 2011

C. Checking in with my thinking -Mid-Term Check-in Course: EDEL 582 - Policy and Politics in Education Instructor: Dr. Viki Montera, Fall 2010

D. Practice and Purpose - Personal Practice Theory Course: EDUC 570 - The Reflective Educator Instructor: Dr. Perry Marker, Fall 2011

2) The Breadth and Depth of Knowledge (Research) E. Professional Development & Personnel Hiring Reflection

Course: EDEL 581B – Management of Educational Personnel: Polices & Procedures Instructor: Dr. Michael Juric, Spring, 2011


F. What is…assignment - School Improvement Planning

Course: EDEL 580 A – Introduction to Educational Leadership & School Management Instructor: Dr. Paul Porter, Fall 2010

G. To Regroup or Not to Regroup for ELD…that is NOT the question! – Curriculum Evaluation Project

Course: EDEL 588/589B – Educational Curriculum, Instruction and Program Assessment / Leadership for Diverse Populations and Communities Instructor: Dr. Montera, Spring, 2011

3) The Breadth and Depth of Knowledge (Program Area) H. National Reading Panel Report - The Federal Push/Shove for Scientific Reading Instruction! - Policy Analysis PPT

Course: EDEL 582 – Educational Policy and Politics Instructor: Dr. Viki Montera, Fall 2010

I. Influence of Motivation, Accelerated Reader, and Book Club on Reading Engagement - Literature Review

Course: EDUC 507 – Research in Language and Literacy Instructor: Dr. Karen Grady, Fall 2011

J. Reading Fluency Research - Literature Review

Course: EDUC 507 – Research in Language and Literacy Instructor: Dr. Karen Grady, Fall 2011

K. Guiding Principles - Cognate Proposal Foundation

Course: EDUC 572 – Supervised Study for Cognate Project Instructor: Dr. Viki Montera, Spring 2012

4) Ability to Critically Analyze Multiple Perspectives

L. Figuring out Freire - Historian/Philosopher Analysis Project

Course: EDUC 570 – The Reflective Educator Instructor: Dr. Perry Marker, Fall 2011

M. Proactive or Reactive - One Pager

Course: EDUC 570 – The Reflective Educator Instructor: Dr. Perry Marker, Fall 2011

N. Chicken or the Egg - One Pager

Course: EDUC 570 –The Reflective Educator Instructor: Dr. Perry Marker, Fall 2011


INTRODUCTION This portfolio represents my two-year journey through Sonoma State University’s

Administrative Credential and Masters program in Educational Leadership with a

concentration in Reading and Language Development. (See Appendix A) This narrative

synthesizes my learning through reflections on readings and various coursework

assignments. The cognate pathway allowed me to finally develop a list of guiding

principles, based on research and apply these principles to an inquiry-based project at my

school site. My cognate project is titled “Simply, Let Them Read.” The goal is to create

an environment, even if for just part of the day, where students engage in self-selected

texts (either paper or digital format), and reflect on their readings in a meaningful way. I

will attempt to “unpack” all that these students have “packed” about what reading is

about, in order to support them in engaging authentically with reading and entering the

“reading zone” (Atwell, 2007), the state of mind that readers are in when they are

absorbed in a text. I experienced this reading zone while reviewing literature, research,

and articles for this program, and I want children to feel what it is like to get “hooked”

and love reading.

This portfolio is organized in three sections. The first section is a narrative that

shows my reflections on my courses, assignments, and readings. The second section is

an explanation of my cognate proposal, which I outlined above. Lastly, you will discover

my Appendices, which provide evidence of the work I completed in the program that

prompted me to shape my thinking.


PORTFOLIO NARRATIVE

1) Personal and Professional Growth Before entering the Educational Leadership and Masters program, my world was

my classroom. I operated in isolation for the most part and felt obligated to follow

textbook manuals, teach to standards, and try to differentiate instruction based on a

significant range of needs. Initially, I was overwhelmed by the needs of my students and

stressed about not meeting their needs. I frequently delivered whole class lessons and

hoped that I was doing enough scaffolding during the lesson. I experimented with small

group rotations, as I believed that was where the most authentic instruction could occur;

however, my classroom management skills needed work in order to be successful. I now

believe it had more to do with a lack of motivation and engagement. Data from

assignments, quizzes, and tests frequently showed that those who always get it, got it,

while those that frequently failed, continued to struggle. I didn’t feel enough freedom or

confidence to experiment with other ideas that could really contribute to engagement and

growth. I was operating under the adage that at this level we are “reading to learn” rather

than “learning to read,” because I did not truly feel prepared for how to support students

in learning to read, how to teach reading, or how to simply study students while they

read.

Towards the latter part of my ten years of teaching fifth grade, I took on a

leadership role during the initial district implementation of Edusoft, an online assessment

system, and wanted to help others learn to use this resource. I had even asked my

principal if I could possibly take on a part time role of Edusoft trainer and part time

teacher. I look back at that and realize that was a yearning for something different, and


alternative assessment is what prompted this need for a change. Coincidentally, the

following year, our principal became our district’s Superintendent and our Success For

All Reading Coordinator stepped up to Principal. She asked me if I would consider being

the new Academic Coordinator for our school-wide program and I accepted this Teacher

on Special Assignment position, six years ago. I focused on entering data and managing

materials the first couple of years. When our Success For All program was withdrawn

because we were a “Program Improvement” school and needed to move towards more

state-adopted programs, I became more involved in assisting the principal with

implementing new and innovative programs like Visual Thinking Strategies, Responsive

Classroom, and a science-based ELD program through the Exploratorium. I also

coordinated a variety of intervention programs during and after school. Training our

Instructional Aides on intervention programs was part of my position. I even joined our

principal during her “walk-throughs,” which allowed me to reflect deeply.

I began developing a perspective on education that I did not have before. Having

the freedom to experience other classrooms besides my own during my six years as

Academic Coordinator was enlightening. I wish all teachers could experience this. It is

only through this experience that I see all that is possible. I work side-by-side with a

principal who had just finished her Masters the year before I started as Academic

Coordinator and now she is currently pursuing her Educational Doctorate. Maite Iturri

was the largest influential inspiration for me entering the Educational Leadership and

Masters’ program. I finally decided I wanted to go back to school because the

conversations I was having with Maite (which I now refer to as Mighty University)

sparked many questions, ideas, and investigations. It felt fulfilling to enter the graduate


studies program for the sake of getting in touch with current research, to study and

understand various aspects of educational leadership more deeply and to develop more of

an expertise around reading and language development, rather than to “climb a ladder.”

The most significant “aha” for me initially in this program was the realization that

the education system really hasn’t changed that much over time. Discovering the factory

model of education was eye-opening and alarming at the same time. Sir Ken Robinson’s

speech entitled “Do schools kill creativity?” (TED Talks, 2006) is a very poignant and

honest commentary on how schools continue to resemble a factory model and allow very

little room for creativity or individual choice.

During the Educational Leadership program, I began thinking a lot about what we

mean when we talk about learning. Interpretations seemed to vary greatly. I no longer

wanted to accept the definition that the state puts upon us as an under-performing school,

where learning only happens as measured by standardized tests. I wholeheartedly reject

the idea that we can measure student learning with a standardized test. I even went so far

as to research and prepare a presentation titled, “The Right to Opt Out” that explained

how parents could utilize Education Code sections 60615 and 60640 in order to excuse a

child from any or all parts of standardized tests, while doing an Education Code

investigation for Dr. Porter’s School Law course. (See Appendix B) We must collect

alternative forms of assessment to replace No Child Left Behind’s single measure of

success.

I have selected a couple of other artifacts that represent my personal and

professional growth over the course of my work in the Educational Leadership Masters’

Program. They are Checking in with my Thinking and Practice and Purpose. In the


Educational Policy and Politics course with Dr. Montera we were asked to consider

several questions regarding our ideas midway through the course. The assignment,

Checking in with my Thinking, illustrates how I synthesized some of my thinking in the

early part of the program. (See Appendix C) I found myself suffering from something I

called “blame the test,” which prompted an investigation into my purpose and my

practice. I decided my purpose was not to perpetuate the factory model and create

robotic, skills-driven, standardized test takers.

Through The Reflective Educator course with Dr. Marker, I identified the

following six theories as my own in my Personal Practice Theory paper called, Purpose

and Practice (See Appendix D):

1) Inquiry-based practices promote what is necessary in the real world. 2) Open-ended tasks keep students motivated! 3) Students and their households offer Funds of Knowledge. 4) Culturally-responsive classrooms are how we begin to shape a new society. 5) The grouping of students needs to be done thoughtfully, otherwise it is tracking. 6) Relationships are powerful.

These theories seem to be in direct opposition to our current “system” of schooling,

which is what is at the root of the problem in my opinion. I have now discovered that

there is no reason why we shouldn’t feel the freedom to adopt these principles in each

and every classroom. When I no longer feel this freedom, it will be time for me to

change environments.

2) The Breadth and Depth of Knowledge in Educational Leadership

While attending Sonoma State University’s graduate program, I simultaneously

participate in a professional discussion group called Purpose and Practice at my site,

with the help of our third party facilitator, Dr. Viki Montera. This forum allows a


voluntary group of teachers and the principal, the freedom to discuss the congruence or

incongruence of their purpose and practice. I realized teachers need a lot of nudging and

reassuring (which I needed) that it is okay not to march through the textbook and to

implement alternative instructional methods and assessments. Many of the consultants

that work with our school tend to suggest a standardization of practices, which reinforces

the factory model of education. I am now empowered to develop my own model,

primarily due to the leadership present at my site. John Goodlad, in A Place Called

School, reminds me “understanding schools is a prerequisite to improving them.”

(Goodlad, 2004, p. 17) Seymour Sarason (1971) agreed when he warned that schools

have a distinctive culture that must be understood and involved if changes are to be more

than cosmetic. These ideas have really prompted me attempt to act like a scientist when

it comes to observing what is really going on in classrooms with students and teachers. I

explain a bit more about how this Purpose and Practice group provides a form of

professional development at my site, in the Professional Development Analysis I wrote

for Dr. Juric’s Personnel course. (See Appendix E)

The “What is” assignment (See Appendix F) for the Introduction to Educational

Leadership course with Dr. Porter, was a springboard for my questioning about the

possibility of NOT accepting “what is.” I have included that assignment to illustrate that

we must first understand how things are and revel in whatever discomfort that may cause,

before thinking of change. I have learned that it is only when we truly understand the

root of an issue that we can then proceed with attempting to match a solution or next step.

For example, in my Curriculum Evaluation paper for Dr. Montera’s Educational

Curriculum course, I researched the effects of homogeneous grouping and titled my


investigation: “To Group or Not to Group.” (See Appendix G) As an educational leader,

it is important to engage in conversations about instructional practices like leveling

students for various purposes. The implications some of these practices have on students

is immense and even damaging.

Through my many discussions with teachers at my site and being a member of our

school’s Purpose and Practice group, I discovered that education is what we make of it.

We have the capacity to indigenously create the educational environment we want to

create. (Heckmann & Montera, 2009) “Teachers cannot create and sustain contexts of

productive learning for students if those conditions do not exist for the teachers. (Sarason,

2004, p. 131) Our Purpose and Practice group is the single most effective type of

professional development in my opinion, because it inspires teachers to immediately

engage in classroom inquiry

Reading and applying educational research in such courses as Education

Leadership, Educational Policy & Politics, Research in Language and Literacy, and

Assessment and Teaching in Reading and Language Arts, has allowed me to “unlearn” all

that I had been told about teaching so I could then begin to listen and hear what students

were saying through their words and body language. This opens the door to productive

learning. Seymour Sarason in the book, And What Do YOU Mean By Learning?, refers

to John Dewey as a person who

“...did not seek laws of learning but took as a given that humans were quintessentially curious organisms, curious about themselves and their world, seekers of knowledge and experience that had personal meaning for them; it followed, therefore, that a context of classroom learning that ignored or was insensitive to this given was a dysfunctional one, an unproductive one. (Sarason, 2004, p. 5)


Inquiry IS learning. Teachers need to step back and get out of the way of

students’ learning. As educational leaders, we need to watch and listen to the natural

curiosity in children, and instead of trying to fix them, we need to understand. If we can

provide an environment where children can create a meaningful context for learning, then

productive learning will occur. Diane Stephens offers a format for testing our hypotheses

while we are kid-watching, in her book, Assessment as Inquiry – Learning the

Hypothesis-Test Process (2000). If we simply notice and record our observations,

interpretations, hypotheses, and curricular decisions, we engage in a process called

Hypothesis-Test. (p. 5) Teachers and administrators can engage in this process and then

work together to improve daily educational practices.

I have learned by working with our principal on a daily basis, that the amount of

freedom teachers feel to engage in inquiry and abandon standardized teaching practices is

directly related to the type of leadership at the site. We are lucky to have a principal that

is open to inquiry and to doing whatever works for student and teachers.

3) The Breadth and Depth of Knowledge in Reading and Language Development As a fifth grade teacher for 10 years, and now a coordinator of interventions, I

was ashamed to admit I really didn’t feel like I knew how to “teach” reading and now I

question if reading can even be taught! In fifth grade, supposedly students are “reading

to learn” not “learning to read.” I felt we were doing such a disservice when we

regularly send our fifth graders to middle school not fully proficient in reading (however

that is measured?) or at least loving to read. We set them up to drown. Something must

be done! I have got to figure out how to motivate and engage students with reading and


support my colleagues in shifting their thoughts about the purpose of reading and the

metrics associated with assessment.

Studying the National Reading Panel report and its recommendations for our

Policy Analysis in Dr. Montera’s Educational Policy and Politics course, allowed me to

see how and why we have all the intervention programs and state-adopted texts that we

do. (See Appendix H) Discovering how the research (or lack thereof) was interpreted,

cemented the fact for me that a pre-arranged agenda was in place, before the panel was

even assembled. Engaging in my own research around this report really enlightened me

on how to interpret any study. We can make data “say” anything we want to based on

how we interpret information or on what we choose to keep or omit in a findings

discussion.

I also reflected on my own journey regarding reading research. I remember

attending a Consortium on Reading Excellence conference where presenters tossed the

initials “SBRR” around like we were all supposed to know what that was but I had no

idea. I finally figured out it meant “Scientifically Based Reading Research” and thought

I had a total epiphany moment. I decided I needed to find out about this body of

knowledge from the Reading Excellence Act (1998) and that would teach me how to

teach reading. I then learned about DIBELs and was even sent to Oregon to become

“DIBELified” by the creators. (Good & Kaminski, 2002) I had decided that there was

this tiered system for learning how to read and that these certain “pillars” needed to be

taught in a sequential order. I thought I had finally found a formula for teaching reading.

I then found comfort in reviewing a multitude of intervention programs that used the

DIBELs language to place and progress monitor students. I also noticed our state


adopted curriculum referred to the same pillars that the National Reading Panel suggested

and again felt validated that I was on the right track.

Obviously, I have now been derailed in my thinking again, and thank goodness

for that! My continued journey in Sonoma State University’s Educational Leadership

and Masters program with a concentration in Reading and Language Development has

completely thrown me into a world that feels right. I am learning to trust my intuitive

sense more, ask questions, and review the readings and research I am doing. I always

admire someone with conviction; conviction about any topic, whether I agree or disagree.

My goal in this program is to develop conviction around my thoughts and formulate

guiding principles that I believe in, through my cognate project.

I have learned that opportunities for authentic reading with real meaning and

purpose are far and few between. Rarely do students get to select their own topics or

books to read without being required to turn in a book report, take a test, or be required to

answer a million comprehension questions. The most reliable indicator of motivation for

literacy learning is not the type of reading program that a district follows, but the actual

daily tasks that teachers provide in their classrooms (Turner & Paris, 1995). I walk

through the classrooms at my school site and rarely notice evidence of real reading

engagement. Where did the love of reading go? Are there practices that we engage in on

a daily basis that effect students’ motivation to read? What are the practices that

contribute to reading engagement? Motivation is a required component when learning to

read and staying engaged.

Through the Literature Review I conducted for my Research in Language and

Literacy course with Dr. Grady, I analyzed studies and literature that focused on


understanding how students feel their reading engagement or motivation is effected by

specific practices like, Accelerated Reader and book club. (See Appendices I & J)

I developed my own set of guiding principles through the Literature Review

process, which is also helping to inform the work I am doing for my cognate. This list

below is detailed with supporting literature in my Guiding Principles list.

Guiding Principles in Literacy Development:

1 – Students get better at reading by reading. 2 – The literacy task effects how students view the purpose of reading. 3 – Engagement and motivation is key to creating lifelong learners. 4 – Students need the freedom to select their own texts. 5 –Caution must be used when leveling students or books. 6 – Students interact socially in their approach to literacy and as a result proactively create new understanding from text. 7 – A positive self-concept by the learner needs to be developed, as well as the belief by the educator that “All children do learn.” 8 – Learning to read and write is analogous to learning to speak. 9 – Children are punished by rewards. 10 – In order to support reading and language growth, teachers need to collect information to build a “cumulative collective” about each student’s literacy development.

(See Appendix K) I am currently in Dr. Nickel’s Assessment and Teaching in Reading and

Language Arts course and her Language Development in First and Second Languages

course. I recently came to the realization that I fall into the Whole Language camp,

which actually surprised me. Whole language theory holds that learning to read and

write English is analogous to learning to speak it – a natural, unconscious process, best

fostered by unstructured immersion. In its essence, it seems like a joyful, humanistic,

and intellectually challenging alternative to deadening phonics drills, which turn the

classroom into a factory floor. Frank Smith, considered by some to be one of the

founders of whole language, believes that reading is more about what happens behind the


eyes - on the non-visual information, rather than on the visual information in front of the

eyes. (Smith, 2006, p. 64)

Frank Smith (2006) claims that “reading is the most natural activity in the world,

something we all do constantly, without conscious effort, whether or not we are literate.

(p. 1) I connect to the Natural Learning philosophy, described by Brown & Cambourne

(1987). This view of learning in the context of literacy, argues “learning to control the

written form of the language ought not to be any more difficult, or less successful, than

learning to control the oral form.” (p. 25) Natural learning can only occur when

opportunities for engagement exist. According to Brian Cambourne (1987) this means

learners need to be immersed in content-area study and receive many demonstrations of

content-area learning. Learners are influenced by expectations, which are powerful

shapers of behavior and they need to make their own decisions about when, how, and

what “bits” to learn. For learning to happen naturally, learners need time and

opportunity to use and practice new learning in realistic ways. Learners must be free to

approximate desired study, as mistakes are essential for learning to occur and they must

receive relevant, appropriate, timely, nonthreatening feedback. (p. 26)

The cognate process has allowed me to design my own inquiry to investigate what

matters most in literacy development. I have discovered over and over again that

motivation affects student engagement in learning to read. In order to understand what

motivates various types of readers, I have applied practices like reading interest

inventories, reading attitude surveys, and one-on-one interviews.

4) Ability to Critically Analyze Multiple Perspectives


Being able to articulate my own educational perspective through the analysis of

various historical, philosophical, and theoretical perspectives in education has developed

during my program and continues to develop. In The Reflective Educator class I really

connected to anything written about critical pedagogy. Paulo Freire’s thinking gave me

hope when I was beginning to feel a bit of hopelessness when looking at the reality of our

current education system. Critical pedagogy allows us to develop a consciousness of

freedom. It is a continuous process that requires learning and unlearning and relearning.

For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other. (Freire, 1970)

These ideas provided a renewed sense of hope for me, because supporting students in

developing their curiosity about the world and reminding teachers that inquiry is free for

them to use as a tool, is really what learning is all about. I have included my paper for

this class as an artifact in this section because while writing “Figuring Out Freire,” I

learned that transformation is possible but it starts with one person at a time, making a

difference. (See Appendix L)

Louis Moll contends, "that existing classroom practices underestimate and

constrain what Latino and other children are able to display intellectually." (1992) He

believes the secret to literacy instruction is for schools to investigate and tap into the

home and community knowledge resources of their students. And he points out what his

research calls the "deficit model" of student assessment into serious question. (Moll,

1992) The deficit model is when we focus on finding what is lacking in students. Moll

offers the alternative of looking for all that a community has to offer one another.

Students bring in so much and have a lot to offer. This simple shift can affect every


single action of a teacher. If while listening to kids read or reading what kids write, we

look for what is done well, instead of what is lacking, we will capitalize on opportunities

that would never have otherwise existed.

In addition, I was significantly influenced by a project I did on an investigation of

the National Reading Panel Report (See Appendix H) for the Educational Curriculum

course with Dr. Montera. I discussed this previously, but also include it here as it

represents my recognition of historical, philosophical, and political perspectives. Through

doing this policy investigation, I realized that I had been sucked in to believing some of

the findings from the Panel as they infuse many of the intervention programs we had

purchased, as well as our state-adopted curriculum. I wanted to believe in the way the

Panel had translated their “scientific based reading research” and their pillars of reading

development, until I uncovered the politics behind the entire project.

The work of Dr. Viki Montera and Dr. Paul Heckmann continually intrigues me

as well the idea on how to go from entropy to renewal through the Indigenous Invention

process (Heckmann & Montera, 2009). When teachers realize that they have the capacity

to change how schools operate, then powerful learning can occur. Students bring so much

to their educational environment and it is important to focus on what they bring rather

than focusing on what their deficiencies are or what they lack. This idea has

fundamentally shifted my thinking..

The readings from The Way Schools Work, by deMarrias and LeCompte (1999),

force me to ponder the idea of being proactive or reactive. Currently, our schools very

much “react” to the structure of society. For example, we group students by perceived

ability and level, very much like our society’s class system. We spend hours prepping


students for standardized testing, as if that is the goal of education. Instead, schools

should be the birthplace of change. If we were proactive and focused on creating schools

that modeled what we envision an ideal society to be, it seems as if we would be real

agents of change…and it is time to change!

Paulo Freire (1970) opposes what he names the “banking concept” of education

with “problem posing” education. In this banking concept of education, students are

treated as empty vessels, into which knowledge can be deposited (like deposits in a bank)

by the teacher. While writing my “Figuring Out Freire” paper (See Appendix L), I

connected with problem-posing education. This is where students are involved in reality

and they inquire into it critically and then consequently are able to transform it.

Educational success should not be measured by the ability to regurgitate thoughts

generated by others.

I would like to think that Social Transformation Theory represents some of my

goals in education. This is where participants engage in the social construction of their

own reality. Critical theorists focus on the construction of oppression and how

individuals can emancipate themselves from it (Gramsci, 1971). I also find it

empowering that critical theorists, like Antonio Gramsci (1971), believe they can change

the hegemony of dominant groups. Individuals can be active, rather than passive, even in

extremely oppressive conditions. Gramsci’s insights about how power is constituted in

the realm of ideas and knowledge, expressed through consent rather than force, have

influenced the educational practices used by many, including Paulo Freire. Paulo Freire

believes we don’t become “human” until we engage in critical thinking and praxis, which

he defines as “reflection and action upon the world to transform it.” (Freire, 1970, p. 51)


It was in my “Proactive vs. Reactive” writing for Dr. Marker’s, Reflective Educator

course, that I rejected Social Transmission theory and the way Functionalists think. (See

Appendix M) Many of the readings throughout my entire program highlighted this type

of thinking which prompted a sense of hopelessness for a while. I then fell in love with

Paulo Freire and other critical theorists and experienced a renewal and a confident self-

perception that change starts with me.

One of Paulo Freire’s core beliefs is that teachers must respect the culture of their

students by providing opportunities for them to participate in their own learning.

Economic and social reproduction theorists believe that the power of dominant groups is

reinforced within schools (Nieto, 1992, p.235) The emphasis on critical thinking and its

liberating powers are similar to John Dewey and others that felt that educated people

would promote an equal and democratic society. Critical theorists have a hard time

putting this into practice because the education system seems to mimic the societal

structure; therefore they continue to serve the interests of the dominant classes. I believe

restructuring our system of schooling will prompt a restructuring of society. In my

“Proactive vs. Reactive” piece, I summarize a collection of readings that explains the

need to be proactive and create the schools we want to see, rather than react to a system

that seems unchangeable. (See Appendix M)

I yearn to believe Rousseau’s philosophy: “Learning and knowledge are tools to

be used by the individual – NOT tools enabling society to use the individual.“ (Spring, p.

41) This would mean that the school comes first, when thinking about the creation of

society. School is the environment where students explore the tools they will need for

use in the current society. If this doesn’t happen first, then individuals will be “used” by


society. Therefore, I believe that school has the potential to shape society instead of the

other way around. We must dedicate more time to shaping schools, which, in turn, will

create or shape the utopia we all desire. Yet, how I define utopia is different from how

others define utopia, which is why I strive to fit myself into an educational community

that matches my goals. Through my “Chicken or the Egg” reaction paper for Dr.

Marker’s Reflective Educator course, I once again realized that if I can envision and

actualize the educational community of my dreams, this in turn, would affect the local

community and therefore a larger community and the world! (See Appendix N)

All of this work in my M.A. Program has led to the Cognate Proposal presented in

the next section. An after school Book Club will be introduced, in place of a traditional

intervention class. Too often when I get enough courage to admit that I don’t really think

I know how to teach children how to read, I am confronted with other teachers who share

the exact same secret. I hope to identify a forum that starts with getting students engaged

in reading, resulting in an internal motivation to want to learn to read more effectively for

a purpose. As I gather information from my “kid-watching” sessions, I will then

determine how to use my data to inform my next steps with each student as an individual.


REFERENCES

Atwell, N. (2007). The Reading Zone. New York: Scholastic. deMarrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). The way schools work: A sociological

analysis of education (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early

Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement. Available at http://dibels .uore- gon.edu

Goodlad, J. (2004). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill. Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, New

York: International Publishers. Heckman, P., & Montera, V. (2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world:

From entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1328-1351.

Miller, D., & Anderson, J. (2009). The book whisperer: Awakening the inner reader in every child. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass.

Moll, L. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-41.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity. New York: Longman. Robinson, Sir K. (2006, February) Do schools kill creativity? (Video file recorded in

Monterey, CA. Duration: 20:02) Retrieved from TED Talks: http://blog.ted.com/2006/06/27/sir_ken_robinso/

Sarason, S.B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA:

Allyn and Bacon. Sarason, S. B. (2004). And what do YOU mean by learning? Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann. Smith, F. (2006). Reading without nonsense. New York: Teachers College Press. Spring, J. (2011). The American school – A global context from the Puritans to the

Obama era. New York: McGraw Hill.

Turner, J., & Paris, S.G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48, 662–673.

Documents

Simply, Let Them Read! A Cognate Proposal Diane Dalenberg