When I read picture books with little ones, I always do a picture walk. We talk about what we see. I give them words that match the pictures. I ask what that word is in their language. I want to know what they notice and what they don’t. I might not point out everything because I want them to make their own discoveries, but I do give them some tools to make the text accessible to them.
That seems to be what your directions for Running Records tell me to do. You never said that Running Records should be done on a cold read.
Would it shock you to hear that when we do Running Records for benchmarking or progress monitoring (I’ll leave that description for another post, but if you are truly curious and can’t wait, click here), we cannot assist our students with a picture walk?
We can walk them through a level A book, but not books leveled B or above. We are directed to hand the book to the student and advise them to look at the pictures.
No vocabulary support. No extra noticing. Nothing.
We are disrespecting our little readers. We are hanging them out to dry.
When a student is reading a Level A, B or C book (and often other levels), they are using strategies to help them figure out the words and often the strategies have little to do with phonics and phonemic awareness. They might use picture clues (oh, that’s a picture of a giraffe, so one of these words must be giraffe) or schema (I’ve been to a zoo and I know that giraffes are tall and have skinny, long necks. That word probably is giraffe).
My own kinders haven’t yet learned that the letter G sometimes makes the same sound that the letter J makes. And many of them have never seen either a goat or a giraffe. Or they might know that in Spanish, that animal in the picture is called a jirafa, and unlike some people reading this post, they know that jirafa starts with the same sound as hat.
So when they see a picture of a giraffe, they might read the sentence below the picture
I see a giraffe.
I see a goat.
I see a jirafa.
I see… ummm…
Each one is an error that will pull down the results of their “test.”
Each one says something different about their reading behaviors and THAT was most important thing for you.
But, oh, yeah, we’re not looking at reading behaviors. We’re looking at levels. And teacher efficacy.
Oh, Marie. Your brilliant way of helping us pay attention to our students’ reading behaviors has been reduced to this.
Any texts can be used for Running Records – books, stories, information texts, children’s published writing – but a good place to start is with a familiar text that the child has read once or twice before. This text will provide evidence of how the reader is bringing different processes and skills together. A classroom teacher would probably select something the child has recently read in class. The prime purpose of a Running Record is to understand more about how children are using what they know to get to the messages of the text, or in other words, what reading processes they are using.
Apparently, you felt strongly that a Running Record was not meant to trick a reader or to challenge a reader unnecessarily.
We do things differently now.
The texts that my district uses for Running Records are “secured.” Kids cannot see them prior to testing. Teachers can use them ONLY during testing. These are benchmark tests.
Oh, did you mean for Running Records to be used as benchmarks? I suspect not.
Oh Marie. I really wish you were still here. I need your wisdom. I need your guidance. I need you to stay the hand of people who are bastardizing your brilliance.
You designed Running Records to enable teachers to analyze our students’ reading behaviors.
I think you might be dismayed to hear that my state is using them to analyze how well teachers are teaching students to read.
I don’t think the two uses are interchangeable. And I bet you would agree with me.
I think the word [State] is just a placeholder.
Once the few holdout states are bullied into adopting, I’m convinced the name will be changed to CCNS – Common Core National Standards.
The added benefit (and I use that word in the most facetious way) will be that the publishers will be able to push 2.0 versions of their books and support materials to reflect the name change.
Maybe a couple of years after that, the [Common] and [Core] will be dropped and we can simply be honest and call them what their creators intended from the outset.
BTW – I refuse to link to the CC[S]S. Poison.
Sticking my toe into the blogosphere is a pretty scary proposition. Nearly as scary as sticking my toe into any body of water. But being a non-swimmer is one thing. I’m not a non-thinker. Nor am I a non-talker. Both come quite naturally to me. I typically can’t stop myself from thinking and talking. Writing down those thoughts is far less natural.
But here I am.
Wondering where to start…
Oh! a list?
- my kinders
- my loathing of the Common Core State (sic) Standards
- developmentally appropriate practice, a/k/a respect for kinders (see first bullet point – henceforth known as ‘first dot.’
- bad reform ideas (are there any good ones?)
- personal learning communities, as defined by me or my principal, which are NOT the same thing
- the future of education
- how twitter changed my world
- [insert more ideas here later]
The real problem is – do I really have anything of any value to say?
We shall see – and I use the term “we” VERY loosely.