Comments on: One third flunk test on teaching reading

By: Darren

Darren — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:02:52 +0000

What Praxis test are you talking about? Because I got my math degree outside of California, I had to take not 1 but 2 math Praxis tests. My scores on them indicate that I studied, *not* that they were “creampuff” tests.

By: Mark Roulo

Mark Roulo — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:47:22 +0000

“The TFA grads are given intensive instruction in Reading science, Cal, that’s why they pass the test!”

But the TFA summer training program is only five weeks long.

Even if it is intense and even if the only thing they cover is reading, shouldn’t the teachers-to-be with four year degrees in education be competetive? If you make the assumption that reading is maybe ¼ the curriculum (assign another ¼ to math, another ¼ to “all the other subjects” and the last ¼ to classroom management), we still have a situation where the ed-students with one year allowed for reading instruction are outscored by the TFA kids with five intense weeks.

But I’d be stunned if the TFA five week summer class was *only* about reading instruction.

In many/most other fields, a five week intense class does *NOT* result in people able to outscore those who have spent a full year on the subject. Think torts for lawyering. I’m sure there is something equivalent for medicine.

Finally, if the TFA five week classes are this effective, maybe we ought to hire the trainers to teach in our ed schools? I’m sure that a two quarter (10 weeks × 2) program that resulted in teacher-to-be able to pass this test (and the other hypothetical ones) could be very attractive to a lot of young adults who would like to start working rather than spend 4 years in school …

-Mark Roulo

By: Mr. McNamar

Mr. McNamar — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:02:31 +0000

Bill,
I agree completely the reading instruction is really a much more difficult practice than taking the Praxis. Having taught two very different reading courses as the high school level, Scholastic’s Read 180 and McGraw Hill’s Corrective Reading (Direct Instruction), I truly understand the complexity. I have no idea what is being taught in college–I had zero training in true reading pedagogy.
However, with such an emphasis on reading as a skill, teachers in any training course should have the foresight to study how to teach reading (all teachers). A teacher in training who fails a test more than once should not be allowed to teach our children. That is my ultimate point. They give us a bad name.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:41:42 +0000

When I was in college, the required number of credits for a (7-12) major in the ed school was exactly half of the number required for a major in arts & sciences.

You do realize that your experience is not generalizable, don’t you?

By: Cal

Cal — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:59:06 +0000

I thought they were given a study guide. I looked at the practice test, and got the first few right without even reviewing. I’m sure I could pass it with little effort.

By: bill eccleston

bill eccleston — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:35:41 +0000

The TFA grads are given intensive instruction in Reading science, Cal, that’s why they pass the test!

By: momof4

momof4 — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:42:30 +0000

When I was in college, the required number of credits for a (7-12) major in the ed school was exactly half of the number required for a major in arts & sciences. The rest of the credits were ed-BS that was pretty much useless and the ed school was widely regarded as having the most awful professors, in terms of teaching ability. If they had tried to create a situation most likely to turn away those interested in serious academics they could hardly have done better.

By: Cal

Cal — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:26:54 +0000

The key point is that you must take specialized courses to master it.

Clearly not, since TFA grads pass it pretty effortlessly.

It’s not a hard test.

By: bill eccleston

bill eccleston — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:16:58 +0000

Mr. McNamar, et al, you don’t really understand the issue. The reading exam alluded to is no creampuff like Praxis. I agree completely with you that anyone who can’t pass the Praxis should not be teaching. My Springer Spaniel could pass that test. But modern reading science is just that, a science—complex and demanding. The title of the American Federation of Teachers professional development program in reading expresses the idea exactly, “Reading is Rocket Science.” The key point is that you must take specialized courses to master it. Yet the NCTQ study of 77 assorted teacher prep programs found that just 15% of them included all the necessary elements of reading science. So, if you are not in one of those schools that does teach the subject, you aren’t going to pass the Ct. reading exam no matter how conscientious a student you have been. By the way, why is it that the AFT can’t leverage it’s effective response to the literacy crisis into a better public image for the union?

By: Engineer-Poet

Engineer-Poet — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:13:24 +0000

The problem starts in ed schools; they admit too many weak students and they don’t appear to teach them much in the subsequent four years.

We’ve all seen the efforts to put “dispositions” ahead of knowledge or teaching ability. Why is this a surprise?