help

The Print, Not the Pictures, Contains the Message

2023-07-11T13:35:10-05:00July 11th, 2023|Reflections and Commentary, Teaching|

By Laura Ramos & Mary Ann Arellano

Descubriendo la Lectura (DLL) is designed for first graders having difficulty learning to read and write in classrooms where literacy instruction is in Spanish. For more information, visit https://readingrecovery.org/dll/.


After reading bicicleta (bicycle) correctly in a new text, Juan stops and excitedly says, “Maestra, si quito cleta, dice bici. Yo siempre digo bici.” (Teacher, if I take the cleta away, it says bici. I always say bici). He then continues reading, proud of this new discovery.

Juan’s journey in DLL began in February of 2023. He entered DLL with a very primitive understanding of how print works. He was able to identify 58 letters, and he could write 18 simple (mostly 2-3 phoneme) high-frequency words. The numerous omissions of phonemes when attempting words that consisted of more than three phonemes indicated that listening for sequences of phonemes in longer or multisyllabic words was still in development. Juan scored 9/25 on the Concepts about Print task. His interactions with the CAP booklet revealed that he did not appear to understand that print contains the message and that he was still negotiating the concept of letter and word. His inability to attend left to right across a word made it difficult for him to detect any changes in word or letter order, and, as a result, he could not match 1:1 or read the level 1 text.

Given that his strengths were writing vocabulary and letter identification, his DLL teacher hypothesized that developing his ability to hear and record phonemes in sequence (phonemic awareness) while extending both his reading and writing vocabularies might be an entry point for Juan to engage with print more effectively.

In the first lessons after ‘Roaming around the known’, Juan learned to clap words and listen to their parts. He also learned how to say words slowly and attend to the sequence of phonemes independently. This prepared him for the introduction of Elkonin boxes. Juan quickly learned to manipulate counters while listening attentively to the sequence of sounds.

One day, while attempting fiesta in writing, Juan slowly articulated the word while moving his finger under the sound boxes.  He then quickly recorded “ fyesta.”  His uncomfortable gaze seemed to indicate that he was quite certain that something was amiss.

T:  ¿Qué piensas? (What do you think?)

J:  Pointed to the y and said, “No es la y.” (It’s not the y.)

T: “La y se oye bien pero no se ve bien.” (Y sounds right, but it doesn’t look right) “La /ie/ en fiesta se ve como la palabra bien que sabes escribir.” (The /ie/ in fiesta looks like a word you know how to write). This short interaction allowed Juan the opportunity to hear the diphthong and consider how it is similar to the /ie/ embedded in a word he can read and write. By slowing down to listen carefully to the sequence of phonemes, he was better equipped to consider both the sound sequence analysis and the visual letter analysis and come to understand what sequences are and are not possible in Spanish. “The brain is required to listen for and find the sounds and, in an instant, link these to appropriate letters.” LLDI pg. 93.

During the reading of a new text, Juan encountered the word brazos (arm). He initially attempted barri, possibly predicting (not guessing) barriga (belly) based on the context, dad’s chunky stature in the picture, and based on some of the print details. Juan appeared to detect that the sequence of letters in the text did not match the prediction in his brain. He quickly adjusted his response to match the word in the book. It appears that he was developing the understanding that it is important to check the sound sequences against letter sequences when evaluating his predictions in reading. “Cross-checking occurs when the child can hear the sounds in a word he speaks and checks whether the expected letters are there.” LLDI pg. 136.

During the reading of the running record, Juan predicted the word controló(control)/consolar (console). This initial substitution not only fit the context of the story, but it was also incredibly visually similar.  He immediately self-corrected at the point of error.

T: Curious as to what the child noticed, asked “¿Cómo sabes que ésta palabra no es controló?”  (How do you know that this word isn’t controló?).

 J:  Pointed to the s and responded, “No tiene la t.”(It doesn’t have a t) Clay reminds us, “They are not just guessing. They are computing the likelihood of the features that they recognize belonging to the word they have predicted.” LLDI pg. 145. This also seems to indicate that he carefully considered both sound sequences and letter sequences in order to verify his response since both words fit the context. He was effectively using print detail from left to right across the word. “A left to right scanning through a word is critical in reading because letter order matters.” LL pg. 147.

As Juan’s phonemic awareness skills became stronger, his DLL teacher noticed that his reading and writing vocabularies also began to expand. “And it is clear that becoming aware of phonemes is essential for becoming good at word recognition (Ehri & Sweet, 1991)”. LLDI pg. 93. These known words in reading and writing became useful in helping him solve unknown words.

While composing, Juan wanted to write audifonos.  Although he made the decision to put this new word in boxes, he was unsure of how to record the diphthong/au/.

T: “¿Haz escuchando otra palabra que se escucha como audífonos?” (Have you heard a word that sounds like audífono?)  “The child needs to hear how this new word sounds like a word he already knows.” LLDI pg. 105.

J:  ¡Auto!

T: “¡Si, audifonos empieza como auto!” (Yes, audifonos starts like auto!) T demonstrates the similarity in a familiar book with the word auto.

In this interaction, Juan was able to use a word he had read in a familiar book to help him solve a novel word in writing. “Massive practice with text reading also builds a network between letter sequences and sound sequences between what is seen and what is heard. This massive practice allows the visual perception to become quick, efficient, and automatic, allowing the reader to focus on context and read with fluency.”  LLDI pg. 112.

During the reading of a new text, Juan stopped at the word mientras. After failing to initiate a response, the teacher interjected and broke the word into syllables with a small card.

T: “¿Conoces una palabra que parece a ésta?” (Do you know a word that looks like this?)

J: Thought for a moment, then responded “İMielİ, İComo en el libro de Osito Marcos!” (Miel! Like in the Baby Bear book!)  Mien….tras! He went on to comment, “Y tras es como tres!” (And tras looks like tres!)

Two things were helpful. First, when Juan stopped at the new word, mientras, the teacher prompted him to look at the print, searching for something that he knew about that word. Second, the teacher broke the word into a useful cluster, allowing Juan an opportunity to access his personal core of known. This may have been particularly useful given that the word mientras has three consonants in the middle. The break made the syllables more accessible to Juan. The syllable break may have also contributed to Juan noticing the tras cluster in mientras and linking it to tres! How smart is that! “Knowing many high-frequency words increases the child’s resources for solving new words in both reading and writing by analogy with words he already knows,” LLDI pg. 153.

Twelve short weeks later, Juan read the text level 18 fluently. He demonstrated the ability to solve flexibly by using both the print and the context. For example, when he encountered the word transformo, he said trans slowly and then quickly segmented the for-mo. When he encountered the word aguantamos, he segmented a-guan-ta-mos quickly while integrating the meaning and structure. “When the child’s series of lessons ends and he is reading a text of appropriate level he should be able to solve a multisyllabic word (one that is new, not yet familiar, or unexpected) within continuous text without slowing up too much and by working flexibly with word parts and clusters of letters from an awareness of how words work.”  LLDI pg. 126.  On the writing vocabulary task, Juan wrote 46 words. He demonstrated the ability to manipulate phonemes in creative ways while working with similar spelling patterns. For example, he wrote: para-pero, mira-miro-mire, caminar-mirar, dos-los, veo-velo. Juan scored 22/25 on CAP. His almost perfect score and his interaction with the test booklet indicate that Juan clearly understands that print contains the message. In fact, he was so attentive to letter sequences that he quickly detected the changes in letter order (vool/voló, auga/agua).

In closing, Juan’s DLL lessons helped him learn to look at print in efficient and effective ways by incorporating phonemic awareness, phonics, and problem-solving behaviors that enabled him to decode unknown words in flexible ways while reading and writing authentic continuous text.


Laura Ramos and Mary Ann Arellano are both RR/DLL Teacher Leaders in Amarillo ISD.


Thank You, Reading Recovery Community!

2023-02-08T18:07:55-05:00November 22nd, 2022|General, Latest News, Reading Recovery Teaching, Reflections and Commentary|

 

Thanksgiving is a time for reflection, togetherness, and gratitude. This year, we’re thankful for every member of the Reading Recovery Community. Thank you for working tirelessly to help children learn to read.

Browse our thank you note gallery below. Add a thank you note you received to the comment section in our community and social media and we’ll add it to this post! Bookmark this post for whenever you need a pick-me-up. Your commitment and passion is appreciated!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intervention Essentials #3: Full Implementation Maximizes Effectiveness

2022-05-25T09:41:55-05:00May 25th, 2022|Latest News, Reading Recovery Teaching|

by Dr. Anne Simpson, Texas Woman’s University

Why does full implementation in Reading Recovery® matter?

The goal of Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura—Reading Recovery in Spanish—is to efficiently and effectively lift the literacy achievement of children who are experiencing difficulties learning to read and write. School systems that choose to implement the interventions do so with the understanding that reducing the number of first graders who have extreme difficulty learning to read and write not only sets students on the path for success in literacy learning but also benefits the total school as well. Full implementation is essential for maximizing the effectiveness.

 

What is Full Implementation?

Full implementation, sometimes referred to as full coverage, means that every child who needs Reading Recovery services has access to the intervention at their school during first grade. Children making low progress in learning to read need to make accelerated growth by increasing their rate of progress relative to the expected growth by the end of first grade in order to close the achievement gap. “A school or district has reached full coverage or full implementation when sufficient time and teacher support is available to serve all identified children (RRCNA, 2021, p. 31).

 

What are the Benefits of Full Implementation?

Students, teachers, and schools benefit from full implementation of the one-to-one intervention that significantly lifts the literacy achievement for each student who receives the intervention. Students develop systems for independent problem solving, often achieving several months of growth in just a few weeks of their daily, individually designed lesson series. Students who make this accelerated progress seldom need referral for long-term interventions, thus reducing costs associated with remedial instruction and referrals to special education. In addition, reducing unnecessary referrals to special education frees time for special education educators to focus their attention on those students who truly need those services. Reading Recovery teachers identify and work with each learner’s strengths and design lessons to support the student making accelerated progress. The focus on a strength-based intervention and teacher expertise lead to a positive and productive learning culture for the whole school. Working from a theory that emphasizes teaching for independence and thoughtful analysis of teaching decisions, schools create a culture of what Fullan & Quinn (2016) refer to as “coherence making.” Schools that operate with coherence build capacity for purposeful action and interaction, building precision in teaching and accountability. The added benefit of full implementation includes the highly trained teachers who share their early literacy expertise to grow collaborative cultures and deepen learning within the total school. While it may take 2–3 years to achieve full implementation, planning for full implementation is an important goal in lifting achievement to within the average band of all readers and writers and reducing the number of referrals to special education or retentions in first grade.

 

How to Plan for Full Implementation

Reading Recovery’s unique system for lifting individual students’ literacy achievement in first grade requires school leaders to think both about student needs on a campus (across a district) and staffing flexibility to achieve full implementation.

 

Student Need

To determine the appropriate level of support, teachers typically begin by identifying 20–25% of their first-graders making the lowest progress on their district early literacy performance indicators (Clay, 2005). Reading Recovery teachers then administer An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2019) to determine the children most in need of Reading Recovery instruction. Classroom teachers and the Reading Recovery teacher or a literacy team work together to determine the students most in need and begin by taking the lowest-performing students. By annually being attentive to changes in demographics, changes in performance standards, and changes due to growth, school teams can anticipate the number of teachers who are needed to provide Reading Recovery instruction for all students who need it.

 

Flexible Staffing

Reading Recovery teachers typically serve four students individually in daily lessons for 12–20 weeks (determined by the learner’s progress). The short intensive individual instruction allows teachers to serve between 8–10 students across the school year. Because Reading Recovery instruction is only part of the teacher’s day (typically a .4 FTE), this teacher may use their expertise in a variety of roles within a school during the other part of the day. Flexible staffing models include shared classroom models, English language [EL] services, small-group interventions across other grade levels, literacy coaches, or special education services (RRCNA, 2021).

These flexible staffing models enable schools to achieve full implementation. When a school is fully implemented and all first-grade children who qualify for the intervention have been served by the end of the year, teachers are able to work with kindergarten children or some second-grade students who may have moved in the district or need additional support.

 

An Example

In a school with four first-grade classrooms, each with 22 students, a school team could anticipate that 17–20 students would benefit from Reading Recovery. To achieve full implementation, the school would need two, possibly three, teachers depending on the makeup of the campus. These two teachers would be able to have 8–10 students in their first 12–20 weeks of instruction and potentially 8–10 students in their second 12–20 weeks of instruction. Teaching for acceleration and efficient entry and exit processes will contribute to the efficiency of the implementation. Close collaboration with the classroom teachers maximizes the successful transition into classroom instruction so that the child can learn with independence.

 

Full Implementation Achieved

Full implementation is part of a school and district’s comprehensive literacy plan. Striving to achieve full implementation in schools requires dynamic planning annually to anticipate change in student need and teacher availability. Campus leaders, teacher leaders, site coordinators, and teachers can establish systems for annually reviewing outcomes and anticipating future needs. A commitment to full implementation ensures that children most in need are able to make significant growth in their literacy learning. In addition, the commitment to full implementation reduces the long-term costs of intervening services to educational systems. Full implementation is both a process and a goal in maximizing students’ early literacy success.

 


 

“Intervention Essentials” is a three-part series featured in the Fall 2021 edition of The Journal of Reading Recovery. View and print a copy of Part 3: Full Implementation Maximizes Effectiveness and subscribe to the blog for future releases.

Interested in full access to  The Journal of Reading Recovery? Learn more about becoming a member of RRCNA.

 

 

 


References

Clay, M. M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals part one: Why? when? and how? Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2019). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (4th ed.). Global Education Systems (GES) Ltd.

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (n.d.). Effective implementation. https://readingrecovery.org/ reading-recovery/implementation/ effective-implementation/

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2021). A site coordinator’s guide to the effective implementation of Reading Recovery (2nd ed.)



About the Author

Dr. Anne Simpson is a professor emeritus at Texas Woman’s University, where she was director of Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura. She is a Reading Recovery trainer emeritus with the North American Trainers Group.

Intervention Essentials Part 1: Guaranteed Access to a Full Series of Lessons

2022-04-11T12:33:52-05:00April 11th, 2022|Reading Recovery Teaching, Teaching|

by Connie Briggs

 

Why does the Reading Recovery trademark guarantee participating students a full series of lessons
that may be up to 20 weeks of instruction? 

 

“The quality and integrity of your implementation [Reading Recovery] is protected by a trademark annually granted to sites, pending a review of adherence with the Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States …” (Reading Recovery Council of North America, [RRCNA], 2021, p. 33). With over 35 years of research and excellent national student outcome data, schools and districts that adhere to standards and guidelines—and employ an effective implementation plan—can be assured that investing in Reading Recovery will reduce the number of children with reading difficulties and the long-term cost to their systems for educating these children. Adherence to all aspects of the Reading Recovery standards, guidelines, and procedures is key to establishing and maintaining effective interventions.

 

What is a Full Series of Lessons?
Per Clay’s (2016) design for this intervention, every Reading Recovery student is entitled to a full series of Reading Recovery lessons, and that is individual lessons of 30 minutes daily for a maximum of 20 weeks. Some children will not require the maximum weeks of instruction. They will accelerate their literacy learning and demonstrate the proficiency levels, the literacy processing system, and the learner independence required to ensure their continued literacy learning with less than 20 weeks of instruction. Their series of Reading Recovery lessons then ends as they have achieved intervention goals. They will receive ongoing literacy instruction from their classroom teachers, most often within average groups. Other children will need 20 weeks of instruction to achieve intervention goals, and a small number will not achieve intervention goals even with 20 weeks of individual instruction. Irrespective of their progress, all students are guaranteed access to 20 weeks of lessons. 

 

Why 20 Weeks?  
Adherence to 20 weeks of Reading Recovery instruction for all students in need of this time was suggested by Clay’s early research. Clay (as reported in Clay & Tuck, 1991; reprinted 2009) found that children take different paths to learning and it is not possible to predict at the outset of a learner’s intervention the amount of instructional time needed by the student to reach Reading Recovery goals. In fact, “premature predictions about whether a child would achieve the intervention goals could be wrong for too many children …” (RRCNA, 2021, p. 48). 

Learners enter Reading Recovery with differing prior experiences and varying amounts of literacy awareness, i.e., reading and writing concepts and skills. Consequently, some readers make accelerated progress early in the series of lessons allowing them to exit the intervention with less than 20 weeks of instruction. Other readers need more instructional time to establish a literacy processing system and achieve accelerated progress, and many are successful given the full 20 weeks of instruction. For those children who do not reach the intervention goals after 20 weeks of instruction, Clay (2016) confirmed that access to this full series of lessons, 20 weeks, is paramount to collecting rich, diagnostic information critical for planning the ongoing, literacy support most appropriate for these learners following the Reading Recovery intervention. 

A secondary rationale is based on the number of instructional days in a school year. In the United States, Reading Recovery teachers serve 8–10 students in two rounds of the 20-week intervention. These teachers instruct their intervention students for one-half of their day and fulfill other teaching duties during the rest of their school day. The schedule is not only more cost-effective for the school but also enables the highly skilled teachers to share their expertise with many other students in classrooms or small groups and share their expertise with other teachers in the school. Thus, the 20-week maximum for the intervention, with teachers engaged in Reading Recovery instruction at .5 FTE, provides both economic and academic benefits. 

 

What Happens During the 20-Week Intervention?
Clay’s literacy processing theory focuses on perceptual and cognitive behaviors that change over time as teachers trained in Reading Recovery instruct on the cusp of individual students’ strengths and understandings. Reading Recovery teachers have a deep understanding of emergent literacy development and are able to successfully scaffold a reader’s competencies in literacy across a series of lessons. Reading and writing are viewed as reciprocal processes so during every daily lesson; children read many books, at both their instructional and independent levels, and compose and write many stories. 

One of the hallmarks of instruction is teaching for independence and not doing for the child what he can do for themself. Another hallmark is teaching for problem solving and decision making. Emergent readers must learn to self-monitor when there is dissonance, search for information that will inform a decision, and make a confirmation about the strategic, in-the-head processes that were carried out. Readers entering with limited understandings must learn how to look at print, discriminate among letters, use prior knowledge, link oral language to print, link sounds to letters, develop a repertoire of known words, construct texts, and explore details in print in both reading and writing. The ultimate teaching goal is to support the reader to be constructive and independent as they learn to use phonemic awareness, phonics, oral language, vocabulary, and fluency in the service of reading with meaning (Doyle & Forbes, 2003). The instructional need and the learning path is unique for every student and may require up to 20 weeks of instruction to achieve literacy goals.

 

Positive Outcomes
Every child who receives a full series of Reading Recovery lessons makes progress with two positive outcomes. First, the majority of the lowest-achieving readers and writers make accelerated progress and “have reached grade-level expectations in reading and writing, demonstrating strategic activities that will foster continuing achievement in the classroom with little or no additional support beyond the classroom” (RRCNA, 2021, p. 27). The second positive outcome involves two sets of students: those who, after 20 weeks of instruction, have made impressive gains and have a literacy processing system under construction but need additional support to reach average levels of literacy proficiency. Often, this support comes from the classroom teacher. The second set of students are those few who have made limited progress after a full series of 20 weeks of instruction and are deserving of long-term support. These children are recommended by the school team for further specialist help. “Both [of these outcomes] are positive for the child and for the school” (RRCNA, 2021, p. 27).

 

Conclusion
Each child deserves every opportunity to leave first grade as a confident reader and writer. Becoming literate is crucial to school success; research studies have shown that learners who are poor readers at the end of first grade are likely to be poor readers at the end of fourth grade as well (Juel, 1988). For more than 35 years in the United States, Reading Recovery, a highly successful, research-based, data-driven literacy intervention has helped schools to meet the challenge with a promise of 20 weeks or less.

 


 

“Intervention Essentials” is a three-part series featured in the Fall 2021 edition of The Journal of Reading Recovery. View and print a copy of Part 1: Guaranteed Access to a Full Series of Lessons and subscribe to the blog for future releases.

Interested in full access to  The Journal of Reading Recovery? Learn more about becoming a member of RRCNA.

 

 

 

 


References

Clay, M. M. (2016). Literacy lessons designed for individuals (2nd ed.). Heinemann.

Clay, M. M., & Tuck, B. (1991). A study of Reading Recovery subgroups: Including outcomes for children who did not satisfy discontinuing criteria. Report on research funded by the Ministry of Education, Auckland, New Zealand. Also see Watson, B., & Askew, B. (Eds.). (2009). Boundless horizons: Marie Clay’s search for the possible in children’s literacy (pp. 80–94). Heinemann.

Doyle, M. A., & Forbes, S. (2003). How Reading Recovery teaches the five essential elements of reading instruction and more: National Reading Panel recommendations—and beyond. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 3(1), 1–17.

 Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437

Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2021). A site coordinator’s guide to the effective implementation of Reading Recovery (2nd ed.). 



Connie Briggs is a professor emeritus at Texas Woman’s University and a Reading Recovery Trainer Emeritus with the North American Trainers Group.

Freedom In The Classroom Is At Risk

2022-03-14T16:20:06-05:00March 14th, 2022|Teaching|

by Connie Briggs

A nightmare scenario is unfolding in American public schools today, driven by a minority of parents with loud voices and support from misguided legislators. Left unchecked, it could put at risk the education of our children and our freedoms to think and say what we feel.

 

Many teachers are cautious about what they can say and do in classrooms. They are not allowed to mention race, gender, bias, discrimination, oppression, or social justice. Social studies and history books are whitewashed, and current events can no longer be discussed because of “disturbing” content.

 

Any content that causes discomfort to any child is not allowed to be read aloud by the teacher or individually by your child in the classroom.  Because of the limits placed on discussion topics and book content, critical thinking opportunities are limited.

 

School library acquisitions are also closely monitored for content and the school can be fined $10,000 per day if a banned book is found on the shelves.  Parents can monitor their children and your children as well as the teacher through cameras placed in the classroom.  The teacher can be fined, reprimanded, and eventually fired if she strays from the curriculum, brings banned books into the classroom, or allows discussion of taboo topics.

 

This isn’t a scene from a dystopian novel.  This is America today. Several states have now passed legislation banning discussion of race, bias, privilege, discrimination, and oppression including Oklahoma where I live and spent part of my career. Neighboring Texas, where I have also worked, is considering a similar ban along with nearly 20 additional states.

 

Meanwhile, book-bans are increasingly commonplace across the nation. Experienced teachers are leaving the profession in droves and many schools, not being able to find certified teachers, are staffing with uncertified or alternatively certified teachers. Low pay is also driving people away creating the following kinds of scenarios:

 

Your child’s teacher has had only 6 weeks of teacher training. He or she may have no child development, classroom management, subject matter, or instructional methods coursework. She holds an undergraduate degree in finance.

 

Your child’s teacher did not take courses in specific subject matter or instructional methods knowledge. Curriculum content is now mandated by state legislators and pre-packaged, as scripted lessons. The teacher did not take child development courses because all grade-level instruction is based on a one-size-fits-all curriculum; each subject in each grade level is taught from the same lesson plan.

 

Who would want this job?

 

The limitations being imposed and proposed on education from elementary school to colleges of education in the US today will severely limit what and how children learn and, ultimately, democracy in our nation. Democratic societies cannot thrive unless children are educated as citizens with rights to fully participate.

 

In order to be thoughtful, critical-thinking, decision-making citizens, our children need to understand the full history of our nation and be able to understand and articulate all sides of an issue.  They need to experience and discuss societal issues through books, in a safe environment, before they face these issues in real life.

 

The fact is, many students today experience things like racism, sexism, and injustice in their lives, but these subjects are becoming taboo in the classroom. We’re reverting to an Orwellian world where truth is denied and buried, and we are told to believe what our own eyes tell us is not true. The damage to children is immeasurable.

 

Experienced teachers teach children and nurture the whole child in their care. Students deserve the best teachers who have committed themselves to teach by completing a full program of study at an accredited college of education and who have been mentored by experienced, knowledgeable teachers who understand that each child is unique in his or her development, strengths, needs, interests, and daily challenges.

 

These authoritarian trends have the potential to change the landscape of education and the nation. We all have to be aware of legislative mandates under consideration. We all have to question our school boards about freedom of speech and the rights of our children. Public education is for all students, not just the ones whose parents have the loudest voices.

 


Connie Briggs is a former classroom teacher and recently retired Literacy Education Professor