Monthly Bulletin - April 2007

UNLOCKING THE POWER

For this month's column, I turned to a disturbing book about how we teach children to read in American schools by Jill Sunday Bartoli, titled Unequal Opportunity: Learning to Read in the U.S.A. Dr. Bartoli acknowledges as do all of us that over the past thirty or more years, there has been a long succession of reading initiatives in this country. However, her concern is that in spite of these efforts and the huge amounts of funds invested in these initiatives, "the evidence on the academic benefits of participation are slim. In other words, the additional funding has not routinely resulted in higher quality, more intensive educational programs for poor children" (Bartoli 1995, p. vii).

According to Dr. Bartoli's analysis, there are three reasons that account for this lack of educational progress: 1) a reduced sense of professional responsibility in educating children by classroom teachers and administrators because of the large number of specialists who are brought in to help with these new initiatives; 2) the creation of a "second system" with the introduction of special education; as a result more and more categories of specialists and programs are created to identify and educate children. Because of this dual system of education, classroom teachers identify more children who are then segregated from their peers; and, 3) with increased accountability, the practice of labeling children has introduced the unintended over-reliance on testing to describe students as learners and resulted in larger enrollments in remedial and special education classes. As a consequence, "Schools too rarely alter classroom instruction efforts, even when large numbers of children fail to thrive in their classrooms. Instead we add more specialists and more special programs to repair the 'damaged goods' that some parents deliver to the school" (Bartoli, 1995, p. viii).

In Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol echoes the same concerns when he describes the disparate conditions of several American public schools in the poorest inner city communities and those in wealthier suburban communities. He describes the segregation in these schools that is accomplished partly through special education programs or vocational tracking of students. Both authors describe what Bartoli (1995) calls the "ecology of inequality". The "ecology of inequality" is perpetuated by stereotypes and biases of teachers, some parents, some administrators in our schools and by some members of the society at large; "it is the primary barrier to meaningful and lasting change in the education system" (p. 187). Incidentally, the Educational Leadership March 2007 issue discusses the same concern in the following terms: "Despite the general agreement that education holds the key to equal opportunity, incontrovertible evidence indicates that as a society, we are not delivering on the promise. . . .More than a half century after Brown v. Board of Education, stark differences exist between the education experiences of whites and those of blacks and Hispanics. Dropout rates at every stage of the education system are dismal for these two demographic groups" (p. 24).

What does this have to do with Reading First someone might ask? The answer, everything.  Reading First is currently viewed in the education community as another program among a myriad of reform initiatives to come from the federal government. As a reading reform initiative, Reading First has the potential of perpetuating the mindset among some educators that "unless the state or federal government makes money available, there is no local responsibility to educate all children, especially those who are harder to teach" (Bartoli, 1995, p.vii). Reading First's distinction as a scientifically-based reading program will evaporate unless we make it succeed in serving the needs of poor children in learning how to read. It is up to us, to make Reading First a program that truly creates an ecology of equality in our schools and communities by not only expanding opportunities for authentic learning experiences for all our students, but by allowing full participation of teachers and parents in their education. Our concerted efforts at sustaining the gains and components of the program in our districts, schools and communities will help to reverse the dismal graduation rates for African-American, Hispanic and poor white students.

How do we accomplish this in Reading First? The answer is not simple, but our efforts can be enhanced by adopting for example a staff or professional development model that will ensure optimal learning of all students because it has the following three critical elements: "(1) a focus on renewal in pedagogy and assessment, (2) a re-examination of [our] personal assumptions and biases - particularly with respect to poor and minority children and families, but also in reference to learning to read and write, and (3) a commitment to building respectful and trust-filled relationships with every child and every family" (Bartoli, 1995, p. 194).

Simply put, as educators in schools where children are not achieving to their fullest potential, we need to constantly re-evaluate what we are doing. We need to harness the vitality, energy, creativity and optimism of our students and their families in order to transform our instructional practices so that we can meet their needs. Rather than see deficits in our students, we need to have high expectations of them, because it is only by doing so that we can see what they can become - successful students destined for bigger and better things in life.

Mbulelo G. Mzozoyana, Ph. D. 
Director, Reading First-Ohio