Today was a staff development day at my school. Mostly it was pretty interesting, and definitely useful for getting a picture of the pressures of working in a low-income, low test-scores school. It really became clear after lunch, when my master teacher and the other fifth-grade teachers got together to plan how to prepare the kids for an upcoming test, one of the ones that they use with Open Court every 6-8 weeks. The problem seems to be that this test has a whole new story for reading comprehension, and vocabulary that the kids have never seen before--in other words, it has very little to do with what the kids have been taught for the last six weeks. The teachers were complaining--justifiably, it seemed--that everybody SAYS "don't teach to the test," but on the other hand, that is just what the teachers are forced to do if they want to raise test scores. So they talked about how they were going to bring in some background knowledge that would go with the test story (seems like anything short of actually reading it to the kids ahead of time was fair game) and how to get them the vocab. words they would need.
Now, I am totally sympathetic to this approach, especially when it comes to vocabulary, because, I'm sorry, there is no way most of these kids are going to know certain vocabulary words unless they are explicitly taught--it's completely unfair to give them a bunch of words over the course of six weeks and then test them on OTHER words. But when it comes to the reading comprehension portion, I have mixed feelings. I am puzzled. It seems that the point of reading comprehension is, indeed, to be able to understand something you read, even if you are reading it for the first time. A lofty goal, perhaps, but there it is. So maybe that's why this test gives a completely unfamiliar story. AND if what we want and what we want to test is the ability to comprehend something read, even if it's new--then maybe it's not such a great idea to spend a week on one story from the reader, reading it over and over. Would it not be useful to hit the kids with new stuff to read every day--and go over it with them slowly and in depth, teaching them both a wider variety of vocabulary in context, and strategies for understanding and remembering what they read?? I know--at least I think this is what I've heard--that reading something many times builds fluency--but does it build fluency just for that particular piece, or overall?? Maybe it does... I'm just a student teacher and I sure don't know. Experienced teachers, please feel free to comment. I'm just confused.
My master teacher has said she's going to give me a lot of freedom to work with a particular group of students, and what I'd like to do, instead of so many fill-in-the blank worksheets, is give them stuff to read, and for me to read with them--maybe just a page, maybe just a paragraph--and work with that, going over vocabulary, main idea, point of view, etc--maybe have them do some writing in response, and so on. Is this just off the wall, or what?? Any insight, would be much appreciated!!