Search

People who emphasize teaching quality and the central importance of teachers are right to do so. Where some go wrong is in thinking that teacher quality is an innate characteristic. The effectiveness of a teacher is not some inherent competence, as the phrase "teacher quality" suggests. Teacher effectiveness is contextual. Why has the topic of teacher quality suddenly reached such a crescendo? Education reform has been on the national agenda since 1983, the year of "A Nation at Risk." Only in the last few years has the teacher quality issue risen to the top. The author suggests it may be reform fatigue, possibly desperation. We are blaming teachers because of our disappointments with the results of our reforms. This article discusses the history of misguided school reforms and the problem with value-added teacher evaluation. The author has witnessed over and over that in a coherent school, most teachers can become highly effective.

Most of today's reading programs rest on faulty ideas about reading comprehension. The author argues that comprehension is not a general skill; it relies on having relevant vocabulary and knowledge. He explains the need for a fact-filled, knowledge-building curriculum. He suggests that states should adopt a common core curriculum that builds knowledge grade by grade in order to serve all children to the best of one's ability and to increase reading achievement. (Contains 16 endnotes.)

Tests of academic progress such as those enforced by No Child Left Behind Act are the only practical way to hold schools accountable for educating all children and are therefore essential to the twin aims of quality and fairness. Many of the complaints against the No Child Left Behind law pertain to the supposedly harmful influence of intensive preparation for the standardized reading tests. These objections seem justified only because there is a lack of fit between the kind of education that promotes significant progress in reading and the kind of education that the schools have currently devised in their unsuccessful attempts to raise scores on reading tests. In this article, the author outlines some of facts about reading tests that are not widely known yet but are needed to be familiarized by parents, teachers, and citizens who are interested in educational improvement. The author shows how standardized reading tests can foster a rich and formative education that meets the requirements of adequate yearly progress for all groups with flying colors. (Contains 10 notes.)

In the authors' response to the other articles in this special series, they acknowledge the dilemma that chronic teacher shortages and recent demands for a quality teacher for every child pose for securing sufficient numbers of special educators. We provide information about current policies and programs that states and districts are implementing that hold promise for improving the supply of qualified special educators. Although we recognize the potential effectiveness of individual strategies, such as induction programs, we emphasize the importance of a comprehensive, statewide reform effort as the most viable mechanism for resolving teacher shortages.

"If you want to be able to read with comprehension, you must become knowledgeable about the topic. The more relevant knowledge you have, the less it matters whether the text is complex or not," write Hirsch and Hansel in this article. Research has shown that a student who has extensive background knowledge of a topic will find it easy to comprehend a text on that topic, no matter how complex the writing. On the other hand, even a skillful reader will have trouble comprehending a text on a topic that he or she knows nothing about. The Common Core State Standards in Language Arts and Literacy have acknowledged the importance of content knowledge to reading comprehension by recommending that schools implement a carefully sequenced, domain-based curriculum that expands and deepens students' knowledge as they progress through school. The authors describe how the K-3 curriculum developed by the Core Knowledge Foundation (available for free download) can help schools achieve this goal and transition to the new Common Core standards.

Every two years the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), "the Nation's Report Card," reports the nation's average reading and math scores in grades 4 and 8. Despite the strong focus on reading under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law, the recent 2009 reading scores were not statistically different from those of 2007, which had not been statistically different from previous scores back in 2002. By contrast, math scores have shown a clear upward trend in both grades 4 and 8 during the past decade. Why is it so much harder to raise reading scores than math scores? The stakes could hardly be higher. Verbal scores are highly correlated with students' life chances and contributions to society; Congress was right to place a strong emphasis on reading under the No Child Left Behind law. But that emphasis has often resulted in a narrowing of the language arts curriculum into little more than preparation for reading tests. The author argues that language arts classes should convey key background knowledge, which is the beating heart of verbal skill. This article presents research findings that, once understood, might win teachers' enthusiasm for a new approach to teaching reading--an approach that, by the way, also fits in with the new Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts that have recently been approved by about three-fourths of the states.

Longitudinal analysis of early childhood education, such as that in Project Follow Through, shows the superiority of explicit skill instruction for the acquisition of basic reading skills. But these early gains do not eventuate in significant progress in reading achievement in later grades, especially among disadvantaged youth. This is not for lack of trying, or lack of accountability or competition, but primarily for lack of an adequate guiding theory. The content-indifferent theories of formalism (reading ability is a general, transferable skill) and naturalism (reading is learned naturally, as we learn to speak) are inadequate. Nonetheless, the theories are protected and their failures glossed over by a third theory, social determinism, which argues that social factors outside the school must determine reading results. In fact, naturalism and formalism are themselves the chief causes of low reading achievement after grade 3 because they protect a content-indifferent and content-incoherent curriculum that cannot develop knowledge and vocabulary effectively. Significant vocabulary growth is inherently slow, a matter of years rather than months, and so, therefore, is growth in reading comprehension. This language growth can be accelerated for all students only by a carefully devised, coherent, and cumulative curriculum. This is illustrated in comparative longitudinal studies of Core Knowledge schools against controls. Based on these considerations, more studies of Core Knowledge schools should be undertaken. Meanwhile, we need to recognize that language growth is slow, and so, too, is the process of changing wrong ideas. (Contains 3 figures and 53 notes.)

Outlines fundamental reasons why educational research has not provided dependable guidelines for policy, suggesting how to repair what it lacks. Notes that there already exists some reliable research on which to base educational policy, found mainly in cognitive psychology. Asserts that naturalistic and laboratory research in education have a duty to accompany their findings with plausible accounts of their actual implications for policy. (SM)

Choice of curriculum content should follow four research-based principles: learning is a domain-specific skill; general learning ability is highly correlated with general knowledge; learning a subject requires comprehension of general principles illustrated by specific examples; and broad general knowledge is the best entree to deep knowledge. (MLH)

Explains the need to "cure" American education of its enduring, romantic belief that learning is natural, noting that progressive education has proven somewhat invulnerable to its failures. Suggests that only when doubt is cast on public education's endemic romanticism will there be more equality in education and widespread improvements in academic achievement. (SM)

Two papers examine how to promote literacy among high risk students by better utilizing literacy time blocks and providing faculty development. One explains that poor children with good decoding skills still can have vocabulary and comprehension deficiencies. The other describes how bringing reading research into the classroom requires giving teachers time and resources to develop important teaching skills and knowledge. (SM)

Suggests that despite the Internet offering a world of information, students still need a broad storehouse of knowledge. Teachers must define the knowledge that students need and help them master it. If teachers convey general knowledge to students in a coherent, effective way, and encourage them to read widely, students will have the tools they need for lifelong learning. (SM)

Argues that a common mainstream American culture (a system of common knowledge and root attitudes as well as the English language) should take precedence in the schools over attempts to enforce multiculturalism and bilingualism, which only deepen the disadvantage of the children of the unassimilated. (SR)

Characterizes traditional and progressive education focusing on the popularity of the progressive approach and the role of higher-order thinking in progressive teaching methods. Reviews studies on effective teaching methods and compares the practices seen within U.S. classrooms to those seen internationally. Concludes that traditional instruction is more effective than progressive approaches. (CMK)

For millions of American schoolchildren, taking a test for which they are completely unprepared is like a nightmare from which they cannot wake. It is a trial visited upon them each year when the law requires them to take reading tests with little preparation. Formally preparing for reading tests has become more than just a ritual for schools. It is practically their raison d'etre! Yet students are not prepared in the way they need to be. Schools and teachers may be making a Herculean effort to raise reading scores, but for the most part these efforts do little to improve reading achievement and prepare children for college, a career, and a lifetime of productive, engaged citizenship. The authors contend that this wasted effort is not because American teachers are of low quality. Rather, they argue that too many of American schools have fundamental misconceptions about reading comprehension--how it works, how to improve it, and how to test it. Today, children's reading ability is tested without regard to whether they have been given the vocabulary and knowledge they need to be successful. The authors point out that teaching skills, vocabulary, and knowledge is what schools are supposed to do.

Discusses the utilitarian goals of education and examines how cultural literacy can contribute to a discourse on art education. Makes observations about utilitarian versus intrinsic education. Maintains that the concept of cultural literacy can help art educators make decisions regarding the common core of art education. (KM)