Teacher Librarian Feature Article

The TL web site provides a sample of the excellent material available in each back issue. To access a specific article, bookmark, or column subscribe today, subscribers can contact us with the volume, number and article they would like.

Volume 32, Number 2, December 2004

Challenging the Gender Divide: Improving Literacy for All

Les Parsons urges teacher-librarians to assert their role as school literacy leaders and work with teachers to develop effective reading practices in classrooms.

Teacher-librarians are rushing to the front lines to help battle the latest crisis in education. A gender gap exists in reading proficiency: boys do not read as well as girls. Even worse, that gap has been growing over the past decade.

The challenge of enticing boys into reading has led teacher-librarians into a variety of inventive and proactive experiments. They have started “boys only” reading clubs, for example, and when necessary have enlisted male staff members to help run the clubs and serve as role models. They have purchased materials specifically for their appeal to boys and organized “gender specific” book displays in their libraries. As some schools move toward reorganizing reading classes on the basis of gender, some teacher-librarians have even considered the unthinkable: Should the library collection be reorganized in the same manner?

Before we move any further into pedagogy based on segregation and exclusion, however, we need to examine more closely the source and nature of this current “crisis” in reading and only then decide how best to serve our students’ needs. History offers some clues.

The more things change . . .

Thirty-odd years ago, teachers did not talk about a “fourth-grade slump” in reading or an “eighth-grade cliff.” We talked instead about students’ self-esteem “falling off the tabletop” after Grade 3, and we worried about the number of boys dropping out after Grade 8 or 9. We knew then that a gap between the most and least proficient readers existed from the time students entered the school system; we also knew that gap widened as students moved through the grades.

The solution to the reading gap problem seemed obvious. Schools began to reorganize their reading classes across grade lines on the basis of ability. Known as the Joplin Plan (Molnar, 2002), this approach offered teachers a group of students at the same reading ability level. At a prearranged time, all students within a three-grade limit went to a class with students of their own reading ability regardless of age. No one, of course, was too surprised to see how gender marked these classes. Older boys reluctantly moved to younger classes and younger girls nervously entered older classes. A partial de facto gender divide was inevitably created.

The Joplin Plan faded in popularity partly because of the self-esteem and social problems that accrued, but more directly because it failed to address the source of the difficulties students were having with reading (Molnar, 2002; Smith, 1986). The real crisis in reading today, in fact, is the same crisis that plagued schools more than three decades ago. The issue is not how you organize your readers but rather what you do with your readers, regardless of how you organize them.

Looking for the cause

If a stream stops flowing, where do you look for a solution to the problem? Before inventing a variety of rainmaking machines, you are likely to first check upstream to see if anything is blocking the water. Something is certainly blocking the reading flow, and boys are not the only ones affected.

Reading is a complex and multi-faceted activity. Students grow into reading in individual and idiosyncratic ways. If gender is such a pivotal issue, why do we see so many exceptions in the way students approach reading? We should be as curious about the boys who read well, for instance, as we are about boys who do not: did they stumble at an early age into books on hockey and auto mechanics? We should be as curious about girls who do not read well as we are about the girls who do: were they immune to the universal attraction of Nancy Drew and Sweet Valley High? Clearly, essential factors other than this simplistic and stereotypical reaction to the problem of boys and reading need to be addressed (Flurkey, 2003; Allington & Cunningham, 1997; Graves, 1990).

When gender is a factor, we need to explore why it is and make certain the “cure” is not worse than the “disease.” Where do so many boys pick up the idea that reading is for “sissies”? Why do we expect girls to relate to both male and female characters, but assume that boys really only relate to male problems? If we start making decisions about “gender-appropriate” materials, are we in danger of reinforcing negative connotations about what is and is not suitable to read? What will happen to those unfortunate few who dare to read a book from the “wrong” side? What will the teacher do when the homophobic slurs descend on the boy reading Anne of Green Gables?

Teacher-librarians, of course, cannot remodel the world. Many of the factors that influence reading exist outside their schools and outside their control. Gender acculturation, socio-economic factors or the introduction of standardized reading tests (Parsons, 2001; Smith, 1986), for example, have much to do with attitudes toward and facility with reading, but there is little teacher-librarians can do about these. Where they can make a difference, however, is where students spend most of their time and where they learn what reading in school is all about: the classroom. When teacher-librarians organize “boys only” clubs and create “boys only” book displays, they should be wondering why it takes such a drastic step to put materials into boys’ hands that match their interests and their abilities. What exactly is going on in classroom reading programs?

Reading in the classroom

If students were to define reading by what they do in classrooms, many would say it is reading a story and answering questions (Allington & Cunningham, 1997; Smith, 1986). Usually they are all reading the same story and answering the same questions.

Beginning in the elementary grades, students are introduced to the routine of answering main idea, supporting details and vocabulary questions. Somewhere around Grade 4, they are introduced to terms such as theme, plot, setting, climax and character study, and are asked more questions. By that time, to augment the reading anthology, the entire class is given the same novel to read, chapter by chapter, answering questions of course as they go along. The students’ comprehension is largely measured by rating their written answers to teacher-made tests that stress plot recall, application of literary terms, vocabulary and written fluency.

When they reach middle school, students are usually treated as blank slates, reintroduced to the same, tried and true English catechism, and cranked through an arbitrarily chosen selection of short stories and novels, one by one. Teachers may call it English literature, but students recognize it as the same old game.

The wonder is not that we lose so many potential readers with this nonsense but rather that we don’t lose more. The purpose for reading becomes so devalued that function is lost to form. We ask questions to generate answers rather than thought; students answer questions to obtain marks not to demonstrate understanding. If you do not read much or well before you get on this question-answering, reading merry-go-round, you may end up just going around in circles.

Instead of jumping on a “boys only” bandwagon, perhaps it is time to take a closer look at reading practices in classrooms. Are students learning that reading is an open-ended opportunity to find out more about themselves and the world around them or are they concluding that it is a series of hurdles to overcome and marks and grades to acquire? Do they see their teachers, especially male teachers, avidly reading during the Language Arts/English period or do they notice them marking papers, filling out their daybooks or chatting with the teacher next door? Are they listening to their teacher animating the characters from Roald Dahl’s The witches in a stirring readaloud or waiting for their turn to stumble through a passage in the daily, oral, round robin readalong?

What is a good reading program for boys? To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a good reading program is a good reading program is a good reading program.

What teacher-librarians can do

This is where teacher-librarians can make a crucial difference. Specific reading practices have been demonstrated over time to be highly effective for all students. As school literacy leaders, teacher-librarians can make teachers aware of these practices and help them develop the kinds of reading programs that produce good readers, boys included.

The following questions highlight effective reading practices. As you reflect on the reading programs in your school, consider how many of these questions you can answer in the affirmative. For those questions you cannot answer in the affirmative, a few implementation suggestions are included.

Do the programs feature frequent and regular readalouds of both fiction and nonfiction by the teacher? (And is the teacher reading them well?)

Successful oral reading is a combination of an acquired skill and the choice of appropriate materials. Classroom teachers often need help with both. You can demonstrate how to make books come alive either in a short inservice or during an outreach program in the classrooms. Set up displays of sure-fire readalouds for each grade level in the staff room and encourage teachers to choose books that appeal to them personally as readers. Be certain that they and you are including nonfiction in readalouds.

Do teachers model independent reading during class time?

Suggest an “everybody reads” time for your school and collaboratively set up some ground rules. Even 15 or 20 minutes a day can make a crucial difference. Stress the fact that students learn to value independent reading when they see that their teachers value independent reading for themselves.

Are there enough materials in the school library to match individual student interests and abilities? Are students encouraged to venture outside their usual or expected reading patterns?

Reading cannot be forced. While we certainly would like all students to experience award-winning literature, we also have to be sensitive to the variety of reading needs in our schools. When purchasing, remember that high-interest materials are essential to every collection and that a range of reading levels need to be addressed with nonfiction materials. Reading aloud some of these high-interest materials will ensure their circulation.

Do the students have frequent opportunities to select their own materials and not just from a range picked by the teacher? Do teachers readily assist students who have trouble finding “a good book”?

When teachers come to you for “a good group novel,” be prepared to suggest how they might implement and evaluate an independent novel study as a replacement and indicate to them all the advantages of such an approach. Encourage teachers to send you those students who cannot seem to settle on a book and work your magic on them.

Are students provided with regular and significant amounts of in class time to read as opposed to answering questions based on their reading? Are they then punished by having to take the questions home for homework?

Work with your administration team to establish priorities for the improvement of reading in your school. With their backing, explain to your teachers what the research says about on-task reading and settle on some basic guidelines that everyone can follow. Again, a relatively few minutes a day of “just reading” can work wonders.

Do students have frequent opportunities to respond to materials in a personally significant manner, not just in ways dictated by the teacher or in response to questions asked by the teacher? Are they given guidance and direction in how to do this?

Journal writing is one of the most misunderstood and abused techniques in a reading teacher’s arsenal (Parsons, 2001). You would benefit your teachers enormously if you would do some research on the “do’s” and “don’ts” of personal response and assist your teachers in developing a more satisfying and effective approach to this vital technique.

Do students have many opportunities to discuss with someone else what they are reading?

When students come to you in the library, try instructing them in various reading circle, personal response and small-group discussion strategies. Follow up with the classroom teachers and ask them to reinforce your teaching with some in-class practice. You will find that teachers who were not familiar with these strategies often continue with them after this kind of introduction.

Do students seek out and value peer opinions and advice?

The real experts on “what’s good” and “what’s not” in reading are the students themselves. They know each other, the elements in their environment that shape their interests and their struggles and triumphs as they come to terms with books in your collection. Seek out their counsel. When they see that you value their opinions and advice, they will begin to value each other’s expertise. When a student is considering a particular book, refer to someone in his or her class who has already read and enjoyed it.

Do the programs include the flexibility to allow students to employ a variety of strategies to comprehend material (e.g., retelling, predicting, relating to personal experience, reflecting, discussing, dramatizing, expanding on the text, comparing, hypothesizing, making inferences and judgments)?

Teachers often have little knowledge of, experience with or confidence in such techniques as reader’s theatre, dramatic reenactment, open-ended questioning or personal response. You might choose one strategy a month and briefly highlight it at a staff meeting. Encourage teachers to come to you or others on staff who use that strategy for more guidance.

Is the reading program an integral part of an integrated language arts/English program?

This is the most difficult of all the components of an effective reading program since it requires teachers, including the teacher-librarian, to define for themselves what literacy entails. The word integrated is used so often in discussing English and language arts programs that the term needs clarification. The term is usually used in three ways. An integrated program is one that is 1) a blend of all the aspects of English: reading, writing, speaking, viewing and valuing; 2) individualized to the personal growth, skills and cultural needs of the individual student; or 3) coordinated with other aspects of a student’s program, such as art, music, science, or computer studies. Conversely, the other aspects of a student’s program should be integrated with the English program (Parsons, 2001). With these three aspects in mind, who else on a staff is better qualified to understand and speak to an integrated program than the teacher-librarian?

Reading as a life skill

Teacher-librarians obviously have their work cut out for them. In the current teach/test hysteria gripping the profession, many of these proven practices have fallen into disuse. If teacher-librarians can convince their teachers to include these components in their programs, however, students will begin to understand that reading is an essential life skill. Through reading, they can discover how others cope with disappointment, confusion and frustration. They can recognize that they are not alone in feeling inadequate about their bodies, their abilities or their social graces. They can learn how discrimination and bullying, such as racism, sexism and homophobia, emerge and what to do about them.

But your school cannot operate on a double standard; the values that students observe in the school library resource center have to be the same values taught and modeled in their classrooms. If a teacher-librarian tries to sell students on the true value of reading and the students go back to the classroom to answer the same old set of questions on the same old novel, nothing is going to change. Teacher-librarians and classroom teachers have to be on the same page. If teacher-librarians can break down some of the barriers to effective reading practices in classrooms, on the other hand, students will come to understand what reading is truly all about.

Reading is a purposeful activity. Anything that limits the scope and potential of reading, from filling in the blanks for marks to pandering to gender stereotyping, undermines that purpose. When students, regardless of gender, are finally convinced that reading can help them cope with and make sense of their world and their lives, inevitably, the reading will flow.

References

Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (1997). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

Flurkey, A. (Ed.). (2003). On the revolution of reading: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. (1990). Discover your own literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Molnar, A. (2002). School reform proposals: The research evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Parsons, L. (2001). Response journals revisited. Markham, ON: Pembroke.

Smith, F. (1986). Insult to intelligence: The bureaucratic invasion of our classrooms. New York: Arbor House

Author bio: Former teacher and teacher-librarian Les Parsons is the author of numerous professional books, including his latest, Grammarama (Pembroke/Stenhouse, 2003). He can be reached at les.parsons@tel.tdsb.on.ca.