the ongoing evaluation and planning by three teachers who were professional peers.
Grade Level Models and Expectations
In the days when I only did tutorial small group instruction, I sometimes felt as if I was in a co-dependent relationship. The students, who were unsuccessful in the classroom, elicited personal support apart from their academic needs. We developed a silent contract, in opposition to my conscious wishes...
"If you don't make me read or write too much, I'II be cooperative."
Rarely did a student read a whole chapter book in this setting. Primarily, students read short stories as a part of comprehension instruction. Several workshops presented by Richard Allington at the International Reading Association conferences during the late 1080's revolutionized my thinking about remedial instruction. He quoted research which differentiated the kind of instruction given to skilled readers versus poor readers. Predominately, poor readers were given low level reading activites such as phonics drill or literal comprehension questions about short passages, while skilled readers read longer texts and they were asked to respond in greater depth about their reading. Skilled readers frequently read material at or below their reading level, while poor readers were often asked to read material which was at frustration level. Skilled readers would reread material, while poor readers would read only once. Not surprisingly, skilled readers employed a greater versatility of strategies to approach the text than poor readers, whose focus often remained at the decoding level. As a final statistic which applied to all students, the average amount of the school day which was spent engaged in reading was six minutes. As a result, students were having little time to practice or enjoy reading during the course of a school day.
Allington's research had implications for classroom instruction and for meeting the needs of lower level readers. Students needed to read more, talk about the reading, and learn strategies which would help them to understand a variety of texts. I shared my new convictions with classroom teachers who taught my identified students. Gradually, I left my room and became a partner with classroom teachers. We began to treat all students like readers. We expected students to read extended texts, chapter books, and nonfiction articles. We gave the students time to read and write. We focused on strategies, not skill drill.
The class composition was an important element in setting expectations. At least one third of the students were capable readers who were able and willing to discuss their understanding of assigned reading. As the year progressed, all students were demonstrating thinking and understanding during discussion. Typically, students were reading a chapter each day or sometimes about twenty pages. By having students who were operating within grade level expectations in the class, identified students stretched for the same expectation. The stigma of being a poor reader disappeared. We were all readers.
On-going Evaluation and Planning
Instruction was organized around strategies which good readers use to be successful. When reading text, mature readers think about what they know before they even start to read and they continue to reflect on their prior knowledge while they read, carrying on an internal dialogue. Our lessons in the novel studies encouraged the students to make connections through prereading activities. We built background knowledge with discussion, picture books, simulations, and brainstorming. We modeled, through thinking out loud, how we connected our own knowledge with the new information of the text. Prediction was frequently used to stimulate thinking and to build an interest for the next section of reading.
In the beginning, some students were unable to identify basic plot of the story. We focused on key events and summarizing, first focusing on the meaning in smaller parts of the text, and eventually progressing to key events of a page, a chapter, and a section. Through visual activities, writing activities, and discussion, we attempted to plant the question in students' minds, "What is this about, and what do I think about it?"
Competent readers develop opinions as they read. They react to the text while they read and afterward in discussion and in writing. In the team-teaching model, we were able to divide a class of twenty-fpur into three groups of eight students. In a small discussion groups, students could share frequently and have conversations about their reading. The quality of thinking improved as students of different abilities shared opinions and reacted to each other's points of view. In the end, the students realized that reading was a thinking process.
You may be asking, what accommodations were made for the below grade level readers while we still maintained grade level expectations in the classroom? First, we diversified reading material in a varietg of ways. We always offered three novels during the thematic units. One was usually easier than the other two in terms of syntax or length. For example in the westward expansion unit, students had a choice of Little House on the Prairie, Prairie Songs, and Westward Journey. Little House on the Prairie is much easier than the other two because the sentences are shorter, the chapters are episodic, and the language is simpler. The Little House novel group could haue a larger portion of less capable readers, though a student who had a high interest in reading a certain novel was usually placed in the group of his/her first choice, and other adaptations were made. In the beginning of the year, all the selections were at grade level or slightly below. The difficulty of the books increased as students became more fluent readers. Self-selected reading was also a component of the program. When the students could choose their own books, the range of the reading material was even wider than during novel studies.
Simultaneously we used scaffolding techniques which would help less capable readers bridge the gap between their skill level and the classroom expectation. Graphic organizers helped students organize their thinking before, during and after the reading process. Paired reading and echo reading were used to help students develop fluency, though students usually read text silently for most assignments. The resouce room provided direct assistance during study halls, providing an oral reading, shared reading, or structured time to do homework. The level of support dependend on the needs of the students.
Throughout the year, evaluation was both periodic and ongoing. Schoolwide testing using Stanford Achievement Tests and Informal Reading lnventories prouided benchmarks in the beginning and at the end of the year. The three teachers planned together weekly, and during this time we reflected on the progress of individual students. When a student was not performing well, we brainstormed ways to provide more instruction or support. We also evaluated the difficulty of the tasks assigned to the class as a whole. To strive for acceleration, we always attempted to bring the standard of the class to a higher level We viewed the classroom as a laboratory; we were researchers building a model to teach students how to succeed.
Professional Teacher Teaming
During the six years of team-teaching, the professional ties with my colleagues developed into a partnership beyond the usual teaching relationship. I worked with three different fourth grade teachers, one fifth grade teacher, one sixth grade teacher, and the same special education teacher. Continuity was an important factor in building a strong program, but equally important was the diversity of the people working on each team. The fifth grade teacher, the special education teacher, and I joked that together, in a team of three, we had a whole brain by sharing the strengths of our learning styles.
I learned about teaching by watching my peers teach. We acted as each others mentors and coaches, because we were always evaluating the success of our lessons. The "teacher talk" extended into the classroom, when during a lesson one of the team members would ask, "I noticed that you said... What did you mean by ...?" The students witnessed us speaking as colleagues, and the comment provided a cue to the presenter that clarification was needed.
Since we were all professional teachers, we were peers by position, but more importantly, we possessed a mutual repect earned through trust and experience. We shared equal responsibility for the students. We each had professional expertise. We each shared a professional teaching schedule, not one based on an hourly rate. We all were seasoned professionals. Because we were professional peers, I believe that we were able to plan and evaluate our teaching more effectivelg than a team composed of teachers and teaching assistants. While the team-teaching model was conceived to provide better instruction to at-risk students, in the end, professional growth on the part of the teachers was an important outcome.
Conclusion
The job of a teacher of special needs, whether special education or Title 1, should be to put ourselves out of business. We should help students accelerate in their learning to the degree that they approximate grade leuel competency. We do not want life sentences of special help. Through careful planning of lessons, continual evaluation, and collegial partnership which causes us to coordinate our strengths, we can accelerate learning and move students toward independence.
Back to Top
