Literacy Push Down

Our class is fortunate to have students teaching reading to a range of students, from early childhood through upper elementary, and both struggling, average, and above average readers. The topic of the “push down” of reading instruction wherein explicit reading instruction now begins in Kindergarten was brought up. As an educator who wants to see all children succeed for the benefit of our future, I believe this approach is beneficial because it lays the groundwork for students to become strong readers while still developmentally appropriate. The public, however, has a different view of increased instruction in the younger years.

Public perception is informed by mass media sources that may distort the genuine intent curricular testing. I referenced this article in my September 25^th posting and I’m referencing it again because articles in the NY Times reach a large audience and therefore generates discussion. While Orenstein is entitled to her opinion, I do think the judgments may be misplaced; Dibels are not just to test student, but are used as teachers for guided reading groups and then differentiate instruction, allowing teachers to work within students’ zone of proximal development.

At the same time, as a new teacher I realize this emphasis on testing is due to policies like No Child Left Behind that have made high stakes testing—including at young ages—a reality in schools. On one hand, push-downs like more testing allows teachers specific measures to see where they can be help students learn, but testing also creates high pressure situations that some—like Orenstein—argue are not developmentally appropriate. Where is the balance? Most would agree that programs like public Pre-K provide income-eligible families an opportunity to compete with their peers. Whitehurst explains gaps identified in Kindergarten only widen as children go through elementary school. So where is the balance? I'm sure as I teach more I'll form a more distinct opinion, but I'm curious about what others think!