![]() In some cases, reading the text aloud to students is the appropriate level of scaffolding. Is the decoding too challenging for some kids? Structure some paired, repeated reading to build fluency with the text, before discussing comprehension.Įquity is not about lowering expectations. Are there pieces of world knowledge that might be missing, which would facilitate comprehension? Address those before reading the text. Are there difficult vocabulary words? Talk through and define them ahead of the reading. This means that teachers’ lessons around a complex text will include planned attention to what makes the text difficult. Just like painters or window washers might need scaffolding to get to the third-floor exterior of a building, less fluent readers will need scaffolding to be able to access harder texts. Now here’s a good question: How do we give equal access to meaty texts when some kids have less (or zero) decoding fluency? The answer is scaffolding. This is why text complexity features so strongly in how academic standards advance across grades. Written language at higher and higher levels of complexity is what kids need. We know from research that oral language-conversations, teacher lectures-is not rich or varied enough in the vocabulary or syntax it presents. They learn to figure out compound complex sentences, some of them with strange grammatical interruptions like this one, by engaging with these kinds of structures in written text. They learn new words not by reading words they already know, but by accumulating exposure to new ones. Here’s why: Students develop their comprehension-of language, of genres, and of the world-by working with written texts full of challenging words and syntax. You deny students the right to improve their reading comprehension if you don’t grant them access every day to some meaty grade-level text. Misusing reading levels is an equity issue. Reading levels should not be about denying access they should be understood mostly as indications of what it takes to grant access to complex, grade-level text.Įquity = access to complex, grade-level text They tell you the size of the stool or ramp you need to provide for each student to access complex, grade-level text. In part, reading levels are just like that. Otherwise, they’re stuck looking at nothing but a knot in the wood of that fence all afternoon. Shorter people need a step stool, and people using wheelchairs need a ramp. Remember the metaphor of the solid fence? Tall people can already see over it, so they have access to the show on the other side. Think back to what we do know about equity. Here’s what else it does not mean: “I’ll just report that reading level up the chain to the district, and then continue with my usual whole-class instruction in level 7 books, so it’s the same for everyone.” Equity is not about teaching the very same for everyone, regardless of needs. Reading levels should not be about denying access they should be understood mostly as indications of what it takes to grant access to complex, grade-level text. He’s not ready for the level 7 books that most of his peers will be taught from.” Equity is not about lowering expectations. ![]() When assessment data indicates the level at which a student is reading, here’s what that data does not mean: “Daniel is reading at level 4, so I’ll send him to a group where all literacy instruction is in level 4 texts. And to talk about equity in literacy instruction in particular, one topic we need to address is reading levels. More than ever, we owe it to our students to do the hard work of fighting for equity in all that we do. Now, we are entering an overdue era of increased awareness about another serious challenge to equal educational outcomes: systemic racism. ![]() Now, they are having what looks to be quite a summer.ĬOVID-19 introduced some serious challenges to equal educational access and opportunity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |