In 1997, The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, appointed a National Reading Panel (NRP). The NRP findings, released in 2000, summarized the effectiveness of a variety of instructional approaches in reading. In turn, the NRP report, despite disputed inconsistencies, became the basis of the 2001 legislation, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The influence of NCLB placed research-based, scripted curriculum in the hands of many instructors across the nation, which left teachers without an influence in the goals of the classroom family and prioritized the voice of publishers at the heart of student learning.
During the 2008-2009 school year, I experienced firsthand the stifling reality of scripted curriculum in my own classroom. Prescribed lessons are repetitious and not spontaneous, which led to passive learning. Those who challenged these instructional practices often faced reassignment to a new grade level or school. Having complied with administrative authority for 20 years, handling the alienation of the “teacher-proof” dialogue, the “one-size-fits-all” coaching, and the frustration felt by all in the class, was difficult. Supplementing, adapting, and modifying became the only way to protect the children of my class.
This narrowed the focus of my study and sent me on a journey across the United States. I interviewed and observed educators within different grade-levels and socioeconomic ranks, in search of evidence to what exemplary educators perceived as effective or ineffective literary practices. With the support and confirmation of a valid sample of 20 educationalists, including teachers, administrators, edifying authors, and a former member of the NRP, my desire was that the universal voice would be more apt to capture the attention of policymakers. This qualitative study revealed the ineffectiveness of scripted curriculum, interconnectedness between literary gurus, and interrelatedness of bureaucratic profiteers in publishing curriculum or managing schools and large corporations. The consensus supported innovative literary practices within student-centered education without political affiliation; and, through the active research of these practitioners, evidenced effectiveness to empower this pragmatic literary group, which in turn, empowered both my students and me.
An impersonal, prescribed education is not the answer. Students need a caring, dedicated teacher.
|Commitee:||Kania-Gosche, Beth, Kubicek, Ken, Stanfill, Diana|
|School Location:||United States -- Missouri|
|Source:||DAI-A 73/01, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Literacy, Reading instruction|
|Keywords:||Empowerment, Literacy practices, National Reading Panel, No Child Left Behind, Scripted curriculum|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be