September+24th

I like to think that my classroom, particularly in my later teaching, was a quality classroom. Based on the Wolfe & Antinarella reading, I realized that at the very least, my classroom was a continually evolving quality classroom. I did not always doing everything "right," but I never stopped reflecting, adapting, and re-creating. My classroom was a classroom where students where engaged in conversation; their voices were the most important ones. We were a community where it was safe to ask questions and to learn from one another, especially when we did not agree with one another. Additionally, I believe in giving students choices, which gives them a sense of autonomy-very important in motivation and learning. When reading novels, students had a choice as to what they read, how they divided the reading, how the reading was assessed. Concurrently, they also had many opportunities to meet as groups to clarify points and help each other understand the “visual” of the story. My classroom was rarely quiet; however, 99% of the time, the talking was relevant to learning. (hey, no one is perfect ) :) I don't think you could ACTUALLY be a teacher if perfection is the goal! I stopped giving pre-reading vocabulary after my first year of teaching when I realized that it did not significantly impact student understanding and experience but instead often led my students to predict a somewhat boring and difficult text-based simply on their experience with the vocabulary. Additionally, as Tchudi and Mitchell posit in chapter 5 of their text, teachers must always go back to purpose. What is the purpose for reading a specific text ? Are you simply doing it because it has always been done, or do you have a clear goal for your students? Is the text intended to give the reader some insight into life, into his or her life? (After all, isn’t that what this idea of “theme” is all about in higher level ELA classes?) BE THE BOOK! If you want the students to care about the text, there must be some type of relevance for the student. As adults we have the choice to walk away from topics in which we find little to no relevance, but students don’t have this choice. Many are used to feeling voiceless within the classroom, so they remain voiceless in their writing and their speaking.

One final thought…..as Tchudi and Mitchell indicated, just because we love a text, doesn’t mean that our students will love it! It might have relevance for us….but what about for our students? I do think there has to be a balance. I read every book in my classroom before adding it to my library for individual choice or a class novel...I read new books using Printz, Corretta Scott King lists or by authors like Myers, Draper, Flake...looking for relevant texts, I was often very successful. However, there are times that I believed my job was to help students to find relevance in particularly powerful texts. I used //Tiger Rising//, DiCamillo, as a class novel, specifically wanting to use this dynamic text to explore issues of death, loss, family as many of my young students had many similar experiences. One of my 6th graders opened up his heart and shared how the book brought some thoughts and feelings to the surface about his father's death and he wanted to talk about it. He started talking with our psychologist weekly, and began to resolve many issues that perhaps had led to his placement at Longview in the first place. He is now at his regular school full-time and is a football star! What if I had not taken that chance? Yes, the book spoke to me on a visceral level....I felt obligated help my students see and feel the message, too. I digress!...relavance, Meg, as you point out is still a crucial starting point for text selection intended to engage and support students. ~Meg

Perception is truth. Teachers must truly believe that change is possible in order to make it happen. This is absolutely true because if you make up your mind that something is impossible, it is! My old principal used this expression to capture this attitude " READY FIRE AIM!" Those teachers who do not have a real vision of change will continue to the same as they always have. This is classic task avoidance... many teachers will choose the path of least resistance...fall back on what they know...they will stagnate. I like to call these teachers "pay check collectors" These teachers decry that they are the victims of the curriculum.OBJECTS! I am so pleased to hear your perspective on this topic because it is frustrating to hear teachers indicate that they are unable to change because "those are the rules." Rules are not always indicators of what the right thing to do it. (Hello, for example, Apartheid!). It is easy to say that one has to go with the "stauts quo" but sometimes that's just the obvious way out! On the other hand seductive teachers are reflective "pot boilers" and "problems solvers"(Wolfe & Antinarella, 60). These teachers are interested in the "truth' about their students...to help them solve their own problems. SUBJECTS!

If the philosophical debate limits the definitions for classic teachers as only interested in control and romantic teachers as only interested in chaos, nobody wins. Schools and students deserve both. Good teaching is always about balance, taking both a classic and romantic perspective; each have value in given situations. The question for the teacher is "What is the outcome I want for my students?" Often teachers forget to ask this question. You can have a really "cool" assignment but what is your purpose for completing it? You can engage in an activity or text that has "always been done," but again, one must ask, why am I teaching this (as it relates to student learning and engagement) Any combination of both approaches can be valid for helping students achieve mastery in learning outcomes. This will require teacher leaders to make apparent that definitions of student success are flexible and are aimed at "whole" change within students. That is, teachers must be empowered to carry out their duties as "curriculum guides" that best suits their situation, students and learner outcomes; individual teachers ultimately decide the instructional "what, who, where, how and when" for curricular scope and sequence. Here! Here!

News Flash! Reading is reading. Literature is meant to be an experience, a voyage not a litany of skill demonstrations exported to a multiple choice bubble sheet. Seminal literature deserves to be celebrated and loved just as much as the lastest young adult literature. Unfortunately, these masterpieces, such as the works from Miller, Salinger, Homer, Shakespeare, Dickinson, Lee, Frost etc., are taught as means to only answer literary skill questions. Tchudi and Mitchell point out that too often there is precious little time for students to engage in visualizations that would allow their imaginations to guide their interactions with classical literature. This further marginalizes students from the joy of "realistic" reading. Shame. Parents were always shocked when I encouraged them to support their children's reading-of any kind! Like you said, reading is reading, and if students are interested in a topic, they will be willing to "tackle" much more complicated pieces of text. Again, "fun" reading becomes different than "school" reading, and that is a shame! ~Lisa