 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
Fellowship PaperMATCH SSR: A Simple Structure that Goes a Long Way
By Mark Destler The MATCH School
Massachusetts Charter School Association 2004
Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) has been part of the academic program at The Media and Technology Charter High School (MATCH) since the school’s inception in 2000. Initially, SSR was part of the 9th grade, small group experience. But beginning in 2003, we modified the original practice, such that currently most 10th and 11th grade students (roughly 85 on a given day) spend one of their six academic periods reading in a large room, under strict supervision, and with a clear set of expectations. This newer version of SSR was an experiment born out of equal parts reading research, core beliefs, and budgetary necessity. As an experiment, it raised certain questions. Could SSR be run effectively in groups of eighty or more? Would it contribute to a larger volume of overall and out-of-school reading, as smaller SSR classes have been shown to do? Would measures of student reading improvement show this SSR be an adequate replacement for a third humanities class? Happily, MATCH SSR has been a success, a practice very much worth continuing and sharing with others. This essay begins with a description of the MATCH school student body, a student body typical of urban charter schools both in its demographics and in student reading skills. It includes an explanation as to why SSR has been a part of the MATCH 9th grade curriculum from its inception, and then how budgetary constraints led to the development of a large-scale SSR class for 10th and 11th graders. The largest section of the essay focuses on how this class was designed and managed on a daily basis, followed by an explanation of the relationship between the SSR class and the school as a whole. Finally, the essay concludes with an examination of the range of data we have on the program, as well as a review of requirements for the program’s success. I. The MATCH School Picture: Who are We and How Do our Students Read? The MATCH School was founded in 2000 to prepare the neediest and most deserving students in the city of Boston for success in college and beyond. Our students come from Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, and surrounding areas, and extensive recruiting in Boston Public School (BPS) middle schools has thus far yielded a student body in which 79.41% are eligible for free and reduced lunches, one of the highest poverty levels in a school in the state of Massachusetts (Massachusetts Department of Education 2003). Our student body consists of 65% African-American and Caribbean-American students, 25% Latino students, 5% Asian-American students, and 5% Caucasian students (Safran July 2004). Our students come to us motivated by the vision of college success. However, they face overwhelming odds -- statistically speaking, only one in twenty students in their demographic cohort achieves this goal (Goldstein 2003). Many of the reasons for this lack of success go beyond the scope of this paper -- the achievement gap is today acknowledged and addressed in texts that offer many explanations and propose an equally wide range of possible solutions (Perry and Hillard 2004; Thernstrom and Thernstrom 2003). At MATCH, we believe strongly that a central factor in this lack of college success has been the poor reading skills and habits of most urban public school graduates. Our belief is supported by nationwide assessments of reading skills that show Black and Latino students graduating from high school four years behind their white and Asian counterparts. (Thernstrom and Thernstrom 2003, 13). It is also supported by our internal reading assessments, which show that about 70% of MATCH 9th graders arrive at MATCH each year reading below grade level (Destler 2003). The chart below provides details. As noted, the data is slightly compromised by variance in the test dates. The figures come from DRP testing the first three years; GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation) testing the last two years.
With such high expectations and such a substantial reading gap to close, MATCH has relied upon simultaneously utilizing a range of strategies. 9th and 10th grade students, for example, take more than one English class in a given term. From our second year onward, we’ve provided individual tutorials for each of our students. Finally, MATCH has provided a significant amount of sustained silent reading time for 9th graders, although the format has changed over the years. For the first two years, SSR operated in 9th grade student advisories, and when advisories were removed from the school schedule, SSR operated in a 9th grade reading class. Currently 9th grade SSR takes place as a separate class, with much the same structure as 10th and 11th graders experience (described later in this paper). From the start, we included SSR in the schedule because our experiences as teachers and as readers had led us to believe that students best learn to read by reading. This belief, inspired in this teacher by the work of teacher/researchers Nancy Atwell and Linda Rieff (Atwell 1987; Rieff 1991), has been supported by a wide range of correlational studies. In his introduction to Janice Pilgreen’s SSR Handbook, for example, Stephen Krashen reviews “overwhelming evidence that free voluntary reading makes a powerful contribution to language and literacy development, and that it helps developing readers beyond the very beginning level improve” (2000, vii). The studies he cites show that “it is good for children, teenagers and adults, and first and second language learners … (and) it has been shown to work all over the world” (Krashen 2000, vii). The research that Krashen reviews includes a number of controlled “studies … comparing SSR to traditional language arts instruction,” studies where “SSR has emerged as a consistent winner” (Krashen 2000, vii). From our first year, 9th grade students were given, in addition to traditional language arts instruction, Atwell’s classic trio of “time” to read, “ownership” of what they read, and “response” to their thoughts about their reading. The growth students achieved with this schedule was impressive. Measured by the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test our first three years (2000-2003) and the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) during 2003-2004, students achieved an average of 2.35 years of reading growth in their 9th grade year at MATCH (MATCH Annual Report 2004). Reading gains for juniors at MATCH (who did not participate in SSR) were significantly less than the gains for 9th and 10th graders (Safran, MATCH Annual Report 2004) The success of the program in the 9th grade made expanding the program into the 10th and 11th grades a logical next step. Internal testing results supported our decision. The decision was also supported by our students, who bemoaned the lack of pleasure reading time in their 10th and 11th grade schedules. Oddly enough, however, it would take a financial dilemma to make this expansion a reality. II. The Financial Picture for Charter Schools MATCH students arrive with considerable skill deficits, and to achieve MATCH’s mission students must make dramatic gains academically. Moreover, MATCH (like all Massachusetts charter public schools) must accomplish its goals while operating with considerable financial challenges. The current funding formula is problematic, and budgetary constraints are compounded by the fact that charter schools must rent (or purchase) their space using funds from their per pupil allotment--unlike BPS schools, which own their own real estate and may pay for renovations and new construction through separate bond financing (Goldstein 2004). With the high cost of real estate in Boston, MATCH spends 20% of its per pupil allotment on real estate, decreasing the amount of money left to pay for each high school student (Goldstein 2004). MATCH is able to supplement its per-pupil expenditure through fundraising, but that does not change the fact that our school (and all Massachusetts charter public schools) is always playing catch-up with regard to the school budget. This game of catch-up has become more difficult recently as the Boston Public Schools have experienced their own shortfalls. During the 1990’s, charter schools could depend on the Boston Public Schools to increase their budgets (and hence their per-pupil payments) by about 7% per year, but in the early 2000’s, these budget increases were scaled back to about 4%; then, in 2003 and 2004, the budget increases (and hence charter school per-pupil payment increases) were halted altogether (Goldstein 2004). These budget freezes resulted in layoffs and hiring freezes throughout Boston Public and charter public schools (Goldstein 2004). Like other schools in Massachusetts, charter public and BPS, MATCH in 2003 was faced with the need to adapt to this financial reality in a way that least diminished the quality of education for its students. It was in this context that large-scale SSR was proposed. If successful, it promised to accomplish two needs. If a one-hundred-student SSR class could be effectively proctored by a single teacher, then (in a school where class sizes hover around twenty and teachers are asked to teach four classes each) this would represent a savings of a full-time teacher salary. If SSR were as effective as (and, over time, more effective than) the humanities class it replaced, then the quality of student education would not be diminished. In fact, we hoped the class might reinforce and support other school-wide initiatives and structures in such a way that the overall educational experience for students was improved. All of this depended, however, on whether the class could be effectively managed and whether student reading gains would be achieved. It would take weeks of planning and a year of implementation to begin to answer these questions. III. MATCH SSR in Design and Practice In order for MATCH SSR to work on such a large scale, the traditional elements of time, ownership, and response had to be supplemented with some rather draconian management and assessment tools. These tools needed to help us:
With these goals in mind, I drafted a set of guidelines (August 2003) for the class and sent them to my colleagues for review. Incorporating their suggestions, a final set of expectations emerged, reproduced in full in Appendix A and summarized below:
These expectations were reinforced by a grading system designed to be easy for the lead teacher to use and for students to understand. Students would start each term with a grade of 100. Compliance with all of the class expectations would allow students to maintain this high grade, but failure to comply would result in severe penalties. A student who was sent to the office before or during reading time would lose ten points from their term grade. Any student who failed to turn in a reading log for a given week would lose ten points from their term grade. Incomplete reading logs would cause students to lose anywhere from one to ten points. Each week, when the teacher provided students with their new reading logs, the logs would contain two grades. The first grade was the grade the student had so far: 100 minus the number of points that student had lost. The second grade was their projected grade for the term: 100 minus the number of penalty points they had earned multiplied by the number of weeks in the entire term and divided by the number of weeks that had already passed. For example, a student who had a 90 halfway through a term would have a projected grade of an 80 (he was losing ten points for each half of a term). See Appendix C for a fuller description of this system. When we were ready for implementation, I talked to parents about the class and grading system. Some expressed concerns about the way in which failure to meet reading expectations left students doubly penalized with both a lower grade and a detention. I explained that I felt a combination of these two kinds of consequences necessary to ensure students stayed in class and read. The grading system, I reasoned, reached a broad range of students, both those who were motivated by grades and those who were motivated by behavioral consequences. In addition, it reinforced the basic fact that the class was about reading behavior, and poor reading behavior both disrupted the class and kept the student from reaching his or her academic goals. Students received written explanations of the grading system, and parents received a letter as well. In addition, each progress report for the first term included a copy of the SSR expectations or a copy of the grading policy. The expectations and grading system were “non-negotiable.” But I also sought student input on a range of issues throughout the year. I did this for two reasons. First, I wanted to do what I could to tailor the reading space and experience to meet student needs. I knew the overall setup (nearly 100 kids reading in a cafeteria) would never be optimal, but I felt that marginal changes made as a result of student input could make a significant difference. Second, I knew that the only way students would feel they “owned” the time were if they had some say in how it was run. Given the number of students in the class, I chose to give students a written survey, rather than gain input verbally. I asked students how each of the following daily experiments worked for them:
Student responses to these surveys had a significant impact on a range of procedures at MATCH, including the following:
All of these rules and procedures paint a rather dry picture. To help the practice come alive, I’ll describe a more-eventful-than-usual Monday in the life of the class. Ten minutes before period three begins, I walk down to the cafeteria with my reading book, my computer (for taking attendance and logging discipline infractions, if necessary), graded student reading logs from the previous week, and blank student logs for the upcoming week. These logs, created using the mail merge function in Microsoft Word, are individualized by student name, student table, and current student grade. On Mondays there is no class meeting in the cafeteria period two, so I have plenty of time to prepare the room. I draw the curtains so as to minimize distractions. I turn on the overhead projector through which I communicate daily expectations and announcements to students (I use PowerPoint and an LCD projector, but a plain overhead projector would probably work just as well). I make sure that the expectations for the first thirty minutes of class (silent reading of books) are on display. I prop open both doors, so students can enter quickly and, if needed, leave silently (with a pass). I ensure that the tables and chairs were in the proper configuration for the class; if they have been moved, I move them back. For the first month or so, I also place 8 ½ by 11 inch signs on each table indicating its table number, so students can find their assigned table quickly and quietly. Finally, I take out my book and begin reading. At 10:26, the bell rings and students tumble out of their classrooms and into the hallways (we do not have silent passing at MATCH). Some come directly to the cafeteria. Others rush to their lockers to get their books and then hustle to class. In either case, they are met at the entrances by an administrator or lead teacher who does not let them into the cafeteria without confirming that they have a book to read. For two reasons, I take pains to ensure that these book checks happen outside of the classroom. First, I want to make sure that no student enters the room unprepared. Second, I want students to see me reading from the moment they walk in. At 10:30, the bell rings again, and I look up from my book and scan the classroom. A late-arriving student walking across the cafeteria to his table is intercepted and sent to the office. Two students whispering to each other as they take out their books would also be asked to leave, no discussion allowed. A fourth student who was doing written work is also be asked to leave (four students sent out would be significantly more eventful-than-usual; in practice, I send an average of fewer than two students to the office per week). Satisfied that the remaining eighty or so students are reading, I then go back to reading my book. The next ten minutes for me consists of a combination of reading my book and scanning the room for students with their hands raised. When I see a student with his or her hand raised, I acknowledge that student’s hand and then walk slowly and quietly over to him or her. Moving to the students has two positive effects: first, it keeps student movement (and distraction) in the classroom to an absolute minimum. Second, it allows me to frequently change my reading location and vantage point. In some cases, the student has a question for me, perhaps a word they don’t know, or an inquiry as to whether something they are reading is acceptable for the class (a book is acceptable; non-book materials are not). If it is a question I can answer in five seconds or less, I answer it; if not, I make a note and come back to the student during the last 25 minutes, during study hall time, when talking is allowed. If the student wants to use one of the two hall passes, I give the pass to the student (and they give it back to me upon their return to the classroom). If the two passes are both out, I write the student’s name down on a waiting list (usually kept in the book I am reading!), let the student know roughly how many people are in front of him or her, and then come back to the student with the pass when that student’s turn comes. Small as it may seem, I feel that the way I respond to these pass requests is a key ingredient in the program’s success. Every second a student worries about obtaining a hall pass is a second that they are not reading. To keep their focus off of the passes and on their reading, it is important to balance consistent responsiveness on my part with an expectation of patience on the student’s part. The expectation of patience makes it clear that reading is the first priority for everyone in the room, including me! I now know that this combination works because students hold their hands up while reading. There is no anxiety in this; students know I will respond fairly, and at the same time, they recognize that because I am reading my book it might take me a minute or so to notice them, and in the meantime they might just as well get some reading done too! All this said, the number of students who leave during a given period is not particularly unusual. Out of 100 students, I estimate that fewer than ten students leave in a given hour. Ten minutes into the class, I walk around the room with my seating chart and take attendance. This allows me to ensure up close that all students are in fact reading. A student might chuckle while reading her book, and I smile at that student but also insist that she keep her amusement to herself. I then go back to reading, scanning, and responding to student requests until the first transition time at 11:00. At 11:00, I forward the PowerPoint presentation on the wall to a second slide that communicates the expectations for the silent study time. We then process student reading logs. Each Friday students turn in their reading logs, and each Monday I return these logs (graded) to students, along with blank new logs for the new week. Students take a few minutes to review their graded logs and blank logs. Their graded logs tell them how they had done on the last week’s work, and their blank logs (each with an individualized progress report done through a mail merge) tell them how they are doing in the term overall. Once these are reviewed, students then complete their reading logs for Monday. Some students have questions about their grades, and I acknowledge their desire to talk while putting them off until the last ten minutes of class, when talking is permitted. They then either continue reading or do other schoolwork. If a student starts talking to another student during this time, they are sent to the office. At 11:15, I forward the PowerPoint presentation to the final set of expectations, ones which allow students to talk quietly about their work to others who are sitting nearby. Some days the murmuring starts almost instantaneously; other days students remain silent for several minutes, deep in their work and oblivious to the change in expectations. I use this time to talk to individual students whose questions I had not been able to answer during the silent reading and study time. At about 11:23, I raise my hand to get everyone’s silent attention (an effective school-wide practice), make any verbal announcements that need to be made, and, in a tradition that has become a favorite of mine (though sometimes an embarrassment for students!), I sing Happy Birthday (alone or accompanied by volunteers!) to any students whose birthdays occurred that Monday or over the previous weekend. This then brings us to the bell and the end of class. IV. The Relationship between SSR and the Rest of the School While SSR takes place in one room, the benefits of the practice are far reaching. First, and most significant, SSR facilitates common planning time. Because all 10th and 11th graders are in the cafeteria under my supervision during period three, most team and parent meetings for the 10th and 11th grade teachers can be scheduled during this time. In addition, all of the humanities teachers are freed up during this period to meet with the department chair. Second, SSR allows flexibility in scheduling special course offerings. Opportunities such as an SAT prep class for juniors (three days a week between February and May) and a media elective for sophomores (two days a week on a semester basis) are easily scheduled and executed during the SSR slot. Third, SSR allows time for individualized and small-group instruction. Initially, during SSR time, students with special needs in reading were scheduled to meet with the SPED teacher, a practice that served to keep students out of an environment that would probably have not been appropriate for them and that kept these students from missing instruction in their core classes (because they didn’t have to be pulled from those classes in order to receive services). Over time, however, more and more students have utilized SSR time to meet with teachers, individually and in small groups, notifying me ahead of time. I can always tell when big tests are coming up because the number of students in SSR is noticeably reduced. Managing the comings and goings of students in SSR is facilitated by technology and careful record keeping. I take attendance daily (which is easy to do, because of assigned tables and a spreadsheet that filters out the names of students who are scheduled to attend other sessions or classes). When a student is on my list and isn’t in SSR, I simply send an e-mail to the main office, asking them to check on attendance. If the student is in school, I send a message to his or her teachers, and one usually “fesses up” to having that student and neglecting to notify me. Not once in the whole 2003-2004 school year did a student “skip” SSR. At the same time that SSR makes a range of school practices possible, the class also benefits tremendously from two already-existing school practices. First, at MATCH there’s a school-wide commitment to assigning and assessing (through reading quizzes) a large volume of reading on a daily basis. Sophomores take two classes, English and Humanities, where the primary texts are novels and other trade books. Between the two classes, students are expected to read twenty books a year. Juniors take an English class (reading ten trade books a year) and an American History class (reading two textbooks and five trade books a year). Facing daily reading quizzes on between twenty and fifty pages of reading a night provides students with a significant incentive to use their SSR time for reading. Second, at MATCH there is a school-wide commitment to reading for pleasure. Every month during the 9th grade year, teachers take their students to a local Barnes and Noble bookstore and buy them a book of their choice (within broad guidelines regarding cost, content, and challenge), a practice that hooks many students on reading for pleasure during their first year at MATCH. These trips continue for 10th and 11th graders, albeit on a less-frequent basis. The net result is that most students own a book (or several books!) that they want to read, in addition to the books they have to read. V. The Results of the Program, After Year 1 (2003-2004) Data on Reading To measure the program’s effectiveness we rely on different kinds of data. The first type, from the students themselves, comes in two forms: (1) Reading Logs, reports students complete daily on what they read, how much they read, and how focused they are, and (2) survey results (from surveys developed by this author), information students provide at the middle and the end of the year. The second type of data, from class administrative records, also comes in two forms: (1) grades and discipline referrals, and (2) Degree of Reading Power (DRP) test results, showing student growth as readers, tests administered each June. Reviewing the data allows some conclusions as to the program’s effectiveness. In 2003-2004, students read a range of books. Their end of the year surveys (analysis by Destler, 28 June 2004) showed that slightly less than half (46%) of the books students read were books assigned for classes. Titles included Black Boy, Sophie’s World, A Lesson Before Dying, The Joy Luck Club, The Women of Brewster Place, In the Time of the Butterflies, The Americans (their history textbook), A People’s History of America, and The Scarlet Letter. Slightly more than half (54%) of the books were student choice books. Titles ranged from classics (Dante’s Inferno, Lolita) to contemporary black fiction (Imani All Mine, Naughty or Nice, Just Say No), with a significant smattering of inspirational self-help books (such as, A Child Called It, When Bad Things Happen to Good People, Live Your Dreams) along the way. By any of several measures, MATCH students read a lot. Analysis of their weekly logs (analysis by this author) showed students reading an average of 51 (median of 48) pages per four-day SSR week. The end-of-the-year surveys (developed and distributed by this author, 28 June 2004), students reported reading an average of ten (median of eight) books during SSR over the course of the school year, more than half of the eighteen (median of 15.5) books they reported reading overall. Of more significance, almost all students reported reading more during the 2003-2004 school year (with SSR instituted) than the previous year. 2% of students reported reading “a lot less” than the previous year; 8% of students reported reading “a little less”; 4% of students reported reading “the same”; 37% of students reported reading “a little more”; 49% of students (and this one teacher!) reported reading “a lot more” than previously. Reassuringly, the 10% who reported reading less than the previous year were all heavy readers; they averaged 13.9 (median of 15) books read during SSR and 21.4 (median of 20) books read overall. Also noteworthy is the relationship between the number of books students read during SSR and the number of books they read during the year; the correlation coefficient of .78 shows that a high volume of student reading during SSR almost always correlated with a high volume of overall student reading. Behavior As I created the expectations and consequences for the class in August 2003, I prepared myself for a large number of behavioral incidents. I even went so far as to arrange for a separate disciplinary room for students sent from SSR during the first week, as I feared that the office might not be large enough to hold them all! And as the students filed into the cafeteria early in September for the first day of class, I could sense that they doubted that the rules I described would in fact be followed. As it turned out, however, there were remarkably few disciplinary incidents that first year. In large part due to the clarity of the class expectations and the immediacy of the grading system, the vast majority of the students did exactly what they were expected to do -- read. Moreover, students noticed that everyone was truly reading, and they let me know through the surveys. Students noted (January 20 and June 28, 2004), among other things, “the change in people’s behavior,” “the way I take (reading) more serious (sic),” and that “people seem actually to be reading.” Their perceptions and mine are supported by school disciplinary data. The class averaged 7.5 disciplinary referrals per month, fewer than two per week. Even this average overstates the frequency of disruptions, as the disruptions tended to cluster just before or after a school vacation or personal absence; in only four classes per month were any students asked to leave. In their visits to MATCH, significant stakeholders in Boston charter public schools serving kids with demographics and reading skills similar to MATCH students (actually, schools with higher SES and lower reading grade equivalent) went out of their way to mention SSR as something that runs very impressively at MATCH, better, in fact, than it does at their own schools. These visitors included Erica Jamison (March 2004), Principal of City on a Hill, who shared the following observations regarding SSR: I observed MATCH School’s SSR session last spring, and it was clear that MATCH had set the expectation . . . that reading is a natural part of everyone’s day . . . The young people transitioned from their previous academic class with purpose; they were not there to goof off; they were not there to pass time in a study hall. The supervising adults did not need to remind them of the purpose of the session. It was clear that students knew that they were there to read and to be part of a community of readers (Jamison 2004). MATCH SSR also drew the positive attention of the following visitors to MATCH: the Department of Education charter renewal team from Schoolworks, Inc. (April 13-17, 2004) and Abigail Thernstrom, member of the Massachusetts Board of Education (April 5, 2004). Grading The grading system for the class was exactly that, a system to keep the class running rather than a way of assessing individual reading achievement or growth. A student who kept up with the daily expectations and did nothing to disrupt the class earned a 100, so individual grades were by-and-large quite high (average of 92.6; median of 95.625, analysis by Destler). At the same time, students who came late, came unprepared, fell asleep, or talked during class quickly lost points and could immediately see (through the “projected grade” portion of their weekly log) the effect those lost points would have if the poor reading behavior continued. As a result, very few students became complacent. I was also pleased to see that students who read more books in SSR ended up earning modestly higher grades; there was a correlation coefficient between the two numbers of .30. (Note: Statistics compiled by author; much of the data analysis also appears in the MATCH Annual Report 2004.) The data mentioned above is informative. It shows that students read a range of books, many more books than most had read previously. It also shows that the vast majority of students met the expectations of the class on a daily basis. These facts, however, are ultimately of less significance than measures of comparative student reading achievement. If replacing a humanities class with SSR had caused student reading growth to lessen, then it would be hard to argue that the class was worth continuing (much less replicating) in spite of the money saved and the opportunities it offered in terms of scheduling meetings, tutoring, etc. But student reading improved. Because this practice did not have a control group (that is, all sophomores and juniors at MATCH took SSR in 2003-2004), one has to infer comparative reading achievement with SSR, and without it, from the reading scores of previous years. One way to do this is comparing reading growth among students who were sophomores and juniors in 2003-2004 (all of whom took SSR) with reading growth among those who were sophomores and juniors in 2002-2003 (all of whom took the third humanities class and did not have SSR). The results of this comparison (analysis by author) are encouraging, if not conclusive. Sophomores and juniors (in 2002-2003, without SSR) gained an average of 3.2 DRP independent points from the beginning to the end of the year, about a year and a half of reading growth. Sophomores and juniors (in 2003-2004, with SSR) gained an average of 4.05 DRP independent points from the beginning to the end of the year, approximately two years of reading growth. Another way to infer comparative reading achievement is to compare reading growth for the classes of 2005 and 2006 during 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. At first glance, this comparison looks less favorable: June 2003 DRP testing showed the classes of 2005 and 2006 gained an average of 5.45 DRP independent reading points as compared to the 4.05 they gained during the 2003-2004 school year (measured in June 04 testing). However, given that each class of our students had previously shown diminishing reading gains as they stayed at MATCH (gaining 1.3 fewer points their sophomore year than their freshman year, and almost 4 fewer points their junior year than their sophomore year), this comparison looks quite favorable. In other words, students who could have been expected to gain 2.8 points, gained 4.05 points. Concluding Thoughts This paper, like the SSR program itself, began with a series of questions. Could SSR be managed in an urban setting with groups of close to one hundred? Would it lead to a higher volume of student reading inside and outside of the classroom? Most importantly, would it lead to a growth in student reading skills comparable to (or greater than) the growth attained through a smaller (and hence more expensive) humanities class? After a summer spent designing the class, a year spent teaching it, and a week spent analyzing data on student performance, I can answer each of these questions with an emphatic, “Yes!” Once the guidelines were communicated, the class became a pleasure to manage. Ninety students (and one teacher) read considerably more with the class than they had read before it. Most importantly, student reading growth was at least as great with the class as it had been with another class, and encouraging (though not conclusive) signs point to a greater reading growth. These conclusions, combined with the money saved by the class and the scheduling opportunities it opened up (for students and teachers alike), show that MATCH SSR is a successful practice, one that a range of schools and districts can benefit from adopting and implementing. Successful implementation cannot be attained without a bottom line, however. There needs to be a teacher who models reading while at the same time enforcing very strict expectations, and there needs to be an administration that is committed to supporting said teacher in his or her enforcement of the expectations. However, the combination of a strict environment (and administrative support of that), high expectations regarding reading in required courses, bookstore trips, and the intrinsic appeal of student-selected books means that even those students who are not enamored of SSR read a significant amount. That’s an accomplishment.
Appendix A: SSR Expectations Sustained Silent Reading Rationale (Mr. Destler, 2003-2004) A key to college success (and success at MATCH!) is the ability to read independently with speed, stamina, and comprehension. MATCH’s commitment to supporting you, our students, in the acquisition of these skills is demonstrated by the 9th grade reading class and by 12th grade study groups. This year, MATCH will support you, the 10th and 11th graders, through a Sustained Silent Reading class four days a week in the big hall. Expectations: Strict and Simple This class, held period 3 every Monday through Thursday, will be taken by most of you simultaneously. Because of the size of the class and the importance of reading to each student’s goal of college success, it will operate with the following simple but strict expectations:
I have read the expectations/grading policy and discussed it with my child. Parent/Guardian Signature __________________________________Date______________ Comments/Questions:
Appendix B: Sample Reading Log and Progress Report
SSR Reading Log: 12/9 to 12/11 Part 1: Record
Part 2: Response (AT LEAST THREE COMPLETE SENTENCES)
Appendix C: SSR Grading Policy SSR Grading Policy (Mr. Destler, Period 3, 2003-2004) Your grade for SSR is determined by three things:
If you do these three things Monday through Thursday, you will receive a 100. If you do not, however, your grade will be substantially lowered. Here are the grade penalties for poor preparation, poor behavior, and poor classwork:
Every week, when I give you a copy of your reading log, I will let you know your grade to date. In addition, I will call your parents and set up a conference if your grade becomes lower than an 85 before progress reports or lower than a 75 before the end of a term.
References Atwell, N. 1987. In The Middle: Writing, Reading, and Learning with Adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Destler, Mark. 2003. District Profile: The MATCH School. Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Education, Charter School Office, as part of a report for The Secondary School Reading Grant. Goldstein, Michael. September 2003. “The Third Floor: Planning MATCH’s Future.” Cambridge, MA: Strategic Management of Charter Schools Initiative, Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University. Goldstein, Michael. “Income.” Private e-mail message to Mark Destler. 14 July 2004. Jamison, Erica. “Re: Following Up.” Private e-mail message to Mark Destler. 26 August 2004. Krashen, Stephen D. 2000. Foreword to The SSR Handbook: How to Organize and Maintain a Sustained Silent Reading Program by Janice Pilgreen. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Massachusetts Department of Education (MA DOE). 1 October 2003. Massachusetts Department of Education District Rates by Limited English Proficient (LEP), First Language Not English (FLNE), and Migrant Status School Year 2003-04. Retrieved from the MA DOE Web site: http://www.doe.mass.edu/InfoServices/reports/enroll/04/spd.pdf Perry, T., C. Steele, and A. Hillard III. 2004. Young, Gifted, and Black: Promoting High Achievement Among African-American Students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Rieff, Linda. 1991. Seeking Diversity: Language Arts with Adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Safran, Alan. “Re: Checking MATCH Demographics.” Private e-mail message to Mark Destler. 16 July 16 2004. Safran, Alan. August 2004. MATCH Annual Report 2004. Thernstrom, A. and S. Thernstrom. 2003. No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
| © 2005 Massachusetts Charter Public School Association | design by SolsticeSun Design | |
