Thursday, August 29, 2013

Writing - Use of Evidence

          Today's post will begin to move into the particulars of 12th grade writing.  I will compare and contrast the requirements for use of evidence in the old Arizona standards for English Language Arts  and the new Arizona Common Core English Language Arts Standards.  My three major areas of concern in this area, as with each of the standards are: 1) Are the new standards better, worse, or the same as the old? 2) Does proficiency in the new standards represent the degree of skill necessary for college or career readiness? 3) Do the standards show any political bias?

The Facts:

  • Both sets of standards require students to use sufficient, relevant evidence in expository, persuasive, literary, and research writing situations.  In both cases, they speak to the necessity of using details, facts, examples, etc.  Both also require that direct quotes be correctly included and citations and works cited pages be formatted according to an appropriate convention.
  • Both sets of standards also require students to use evidence from the texts to compare the treatment of a common theme from two different literary works.  The new standards include the requirement that students do such comparison between two foundational works of American Literature.
  • While both sets of standards require students to weigh and consider the relative value of multiple sources and pieces of evidence, the new standards put a much greater emphasis on this topic.  While the old standards mention this skill as a bullet point in the Research strand of writing, it is a common theme running through several of the new writing standards.  For example, the new standards require that students "develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant evidence for each while pointing out the strengths and limitations of both in a manner that anticipates the audience's knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases."
  • The new standards also require students to "clarify the relationship between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims."  This is something that was not mentioned in the prior standards.
  • Technology use is also required in the new standards.  Students must use technology to post and update their writing "in response to ongoing feedback , including new arguments or information."  They must also "[use] advanced searches effectively" to gather "relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources."
  • The new standards require students to evaluate evidence from "seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning". 

My Opinion

          While both the old and new standards required students to use evidence appropriately in their writing and cite it correctly, the new standards give much greater emphasis to the development of this skill than the old.  In fact, of the nine writing standards for 12th graders, six of them deal, in some part, with proper use of evidence in writing.  The old standards list use of evidence in 6 out of 18 main concepts.  Part of this discrepancy is due to the way each set of standards is organized, but it is very apparent when reading through the new standards that skillful use of evidence is paramount to proficiency in writing.  Because of the additional emphasis on evidence and the fact that the new standards lack nothing on the topic that was present in the old, my analysis is that the new standards are superior is this facet.
          My next concern is whether or not these standards (if followed with fidelity) will produce college and career ready writers.  As I consider my own college experience (warning: anecdotal evidence to follow), I think that there were two main struggles preventing high grades in writing.  The first, poor use of conventions (spelling, grammar, etc.) will be addressed in subsequent posts.  But the second was definitely: making assertions without evidence or relying wholly on a single unreliable source for evidence.  The new standards make it clear that neither of these choices are acceptable.  In this regard, the new standards focus teachers and students on a topic that will certainly better prepare students for college coursework.  As far as careers are concerned, those careers that require evidence based research and/or writing are also looking for people who can accurately analyze and synthesize relevant information.  This is certainly a required skill for many careers.  However, most of those careers also require a college degree.
          Finally, I am always watching for political bias in academic standards.  As both standards require ample use of evidence and even a warning in the new standards to be on the look-out for potential biases, I think this passes the test of political neutrality.  Real, solid evidence is not political.  It is sustained by fact.  It outweighs bias.  Further, the new standards require an emphasis on seminal U.S. texts and historical American literature.  They require students to understand constitutional principles and apply them to their writing.  While teachers may choose historical documents and texts that fit their own political bias, the standards themselves are certainly not biased in this regard.
          As the standards apply to use of evidence in writing, my opinion is that the new standards are superior and place greater emphasis on proper use and evidence.  I see no reason to oppose this section of the standards or to add to it in any way.  Students who master the concepts outlined will doubtless be proficient writers as they enter the next stage in their lives.  Regardless of whether or not they attend college, students who know how to use evidence appropriately in their writing will be better able to participate in their communities, to make their voices heard through writing, and to influence those around them.  This is what I want for my own children and for all students who attend our schools.

Monday, August 19, 2013

What if ... We Completely Changed the Way We Fund Schools

          Today I am going to diverge completely from the topic of Common Core and the controversies surrounding it and think out loud (or rather on electronic paper) about an idea I have for revamping the way we fund schools.  For some time I have been considering how the state might change the funding formula to put less emphasis on seat time and more emphasis on the amount of learning that takes place.  I have also wondered how we might more adequately reward truly exceptional teachers.  The idea that is currently forming in my head would, I believe, address both of these issues (although it does not dramatically increase the amount of funding to schools).  Further, I have worried about funding to help gifted students reach their potential as well as encourage those who teach Special Education students to continue to progress at the fastest pace possible.
          As all of these concerns (and many more) have been floating around, colliding in my head, an idea emerged.  My inclusion of it on my blog does not mean that I am sure this is a brilliant idea that should immediately be adopted and pushed.  It simply means that I am thinking through the idea and find writing down my thoughts beneficial as I question my own assumptions and conclusions.  I would love feedback and comments so that I might continue to refine the idea into something that might actually work and benefit our students, teachers, and schools.
          In order to understand my idea, readers must first understand some basics about school funding.  Most of our public school funding comes from the state and is given out based on Average Daily Attendance and/or Average Daily Membership.  So for every student at a school, the state pays a certain amount of money per day that a student is enrolled in that school.  As long as attendance for a school is above a certain percentage (I think 97%), the school is funded based on membership rather than attendance.  Most of the time this is the case.  Attendance is counted based on a number of hours required in each grade.  So an elementary student is required to be in school something like 6 hours per day (except Kindergarten); a junior high student has about the same requirement; and a high school student should be in school at least 20 hours a week to count for 100% attendance for that week.  Even when classes are taught on-line at a "virtual" school or in a "virtual" class, parents or teachers must vouch that students were working on the class for a certain amount of time in order to get full attendance (and thus, full funding).  As such, schools and districts are paid for "seat time" or the number of hours students spend in school.  This funding is in no way linked to what students learn and does not reward schools for helping students catch up or get ahead.
          As stated earlier, most of public school funding is distributed in this way, based on seat time.  In addition to seat time, certain student characteristics prompt additional funding.  In Arizona, students with special needs, students in grades K-3, and a few other factors prompt multipliers that supply extra funding to allow for appropriate class sizes, interventions, etc.  There is also federal funding for schools with a certain percentage of students receiving free or reduced lunches, transportation funding, and extra funds for districts with a higher percentage of highly experienced teachers (because their salaries cost the district more).  There are voter approved funds, some of which are tied to incentives.  And in the past, there were funds for building new schools and maintaining older ones, but these funds have not been available for several year.  Some districts pass bonds to help cover their building and maintenance needs as well as new technology.  I am sure this is not an exhaustive list of school funding streams, but suffice it to say that the vast majority of funding comes from the state and is based on seat time.  This is the portion that I would propose altering.
          My proposal would be to change from seat time funding to funding based on individual student progress.  For each subject taught in our schools, progress or growth levels could be set.  Each student coming into our schools will be at a different growth level for each subject.  Growth levels may or may not correspond with specific grade levels.  They definitely should align to state standards for each subject that has corresponding standards.  A students' progress level can be determined based on testing, portfolio, or a combination of these and other methods.  It should not be determined based solely on standardized test results.
          Each subject and progress level within that subject should be given a relative value based on three things - the skill set's necessity in future education, the skill set's relative value in the work force, and the skill set's value in civic/community engagement.  So a skill like writing that is extremely important in all three fields would receive a significantly higher value than many other subjects.
          Once progress levels are set and each progress level for each subject is given a relative value, schools could be funded based on the progress levels that students attain over the course of the year.  Multipliers should be added for students who struggle to progress, are significantly behind their age group peers, or are economically disadvantaged.  In this way, schools would be compensated for the extra work it takes to help these children progress.  Gifted education would automatically receive additional funding simply because gifted children progress more quickly.  And there would be much greater reward for identifying economically disadvantaged gifted children and helping them reach their potential.  Schools who make sure they fill in gaps for children who are behind will be compensated for each gap they fill because those children will continue to meet new progression levels even if they do so behind their peers.  Special education would continue to need a significant multiplier as well as, perhaps, more appropriate progression levels for students with significant mental handicaps.  This way, schools are given the flexibility to teach students in whatever way is necessary to help them progress.  And no matter what level a student is at when he enters a school, the school will be compensated for each gain he makes.
          The final part of the plan is what I believe would make it truly powerful.  Teachers should receive a percentage of the compensation received for each of their students' gains.  In this scenario, teachers who teach kids with multipliers (students who are behind or economically challenged) or who are gifted will have greater opportunity for reward.  This is appropriate since they are both more difficult groups to teach.  (If you don't think gifted children are more difficult to teach than average children, then you haven't spent much time around gifted children).  And teachers will have to know the progress level of each student in her class on each subject.  Great teachers will be rewarded for each skill set they teach a child.
          Now, for the stumbling blocks that make this a very difficult pathway to pursue.  First, setting progress levels for every subject taught in every school in the state would be a difficult and perhaps highly contested process.  Educators must decide which progress levels must be accomplished in a designated order and which are more stand-alone skill sets.  Assigning values will also be challenging.  These designations will be difficult to make, but I am certain it is possible to do so.  Perhaps even more daunting is the task of determining a means by which progress levels of individual students can be judged.  As stated earlier, I do not believe this should rely solely or even primarily on standardized tests.  Nor should students wait until the end of the school year to find out how far they have progressed.  Progression from progress level to level should be assessed regularly.  I prefer a portfolio approach.  However, judging portfolios is both time consuming and subjective.  I am not sure what the best answer is.  It may be that each progress level or subject requires a different means of showing mastery.  In music is may be performing music that is at a certain level of difficulty with minimal errors.  In math, it may be completing a certain number of assignments above a cut-rate score.  In PE, it may be doing a specific number of push-up with proper form.  Regardless, teachers will have to be trusted to make truthful assessments throughout the course of the year; dishonesty in these assessments would have to be handled fairly harshly (because there is such a reliance on teachers' honesty); and results that differ widely from those on standardized tests should be investigated (especially if there are a high concentration in a single class or school).
          If all of this could be accomplished (and I am by nature a very optimistic, can-do person), I believe our students would receive several benefits.  First, there will be a much greater incentive at both the school and teacher level for individualized learning.  Second, schools and teachers that do a poor job progressing students will have to either improve dramatically or close.  This applies to both public and charter schools.  Those charters that do a poor job educating students will not be able to compete.  However, schools that serve underprivileged students or those who are significantly behind will continue to receive adequate (yes, I know that is debatable) funding as long as their students make appropriate progress.  Finally, there is an incentive to help kids who are ahead continue to progress at the fastest rate they can.  There is no longer an incentive to keep them back until everyone else catches up (something that never happens with truly gifted children).  Likewise, there is an incentive to help special needs children progress even if it takes much greater time and patience.
          Having taken a peek into my convoluted, perhaps overly optimistic mind, I would love to hear (or rather read) your thoughts.  Would it work?  Would teachers prefer this type of compensation (I am not saying entirely replace salary, but rather that a portion of salary would be directly tied to student progression)?  Does anyone else out there have an idea how to move away from seat-time based funding to something more meaningful?  Has anyone ever heard of something like this being tried and whether or not it worked?  Please share your insights.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Writing Standards Overview

          Having completed my analysis of the reading standards, I have decided to move on to the next part of the English Language Arts Standards - Writing.  Both the old Arizona standards found here and the new Arizona Common Core standards found here consist of the three major sections - reading; writing; and speaking and listening.  However, the sections themselves are organized very differently in the two sets of standards.  Today, rather than go into details of the two sets of standards, I would like to address their organization and share my first impressions of each.  For those who may not have read my previous posts, I have started with 12th grade standards because they are the dividing line between high school and college or career.  Since the new standards claim to be college and career ready standards, I decided to start with the 12th grade standards and work my way backwards.

The Facts:

  • The old standards have three strands: Writing Process (28%)*, Writing Elements (39%), and Writing Applications (35%).  Within each of these strands are concepts, each of which contains multiple standards.  Writing Process has five concepts: Prewriting (8%), Drafting (2%), Revising (10%), Editing (4%), and Publishing (4%).  Writing Elements concepts are: Ideas and Content (4%); Organization (5%); Voice (5%); Word Choice (4%); Sentence Fluency (4%); and Conventions (17%).  The final strand, Writing Applications is comprised of: Expressive (4%), Expository (8%), Functional (2%), Persuasive (4%), Literary Response (12%), and Research (5%).
* The numbers in parenthesis indicate the percent of the writing standard that each encompasses.  Because I rounded to whole numbers, the total may not be exactly 100%.
  • The new writing standards are broken into four main areas: Text Types and Purposes (58%); Production and Distribution of Writing (16%); Research to Build and Present Knowledge (23%); and Range of Writing (4%).

My Opinion / Observations:

          The reasons I decided to do this overview were two-fold: 1) I wanted to better acquaint myself with the writing standards so I would know how to break them up for analysis, and 2) I immediately noticed a huge difference in the emphasis from the old standards to the new.  I included percentages of each strand (and, where nested, each concept) because I think they show some of the first impressions I had upon reading them. 
          My main impression was that the old standards focused primarily on the steps of writing (with special emphasis on pre-writing and revising) and following conventions (spelling, capitalization, etc.) while the new standards focused more on the final product - quality writing.  I definitely prefer the latter for standards.  In my opinion, standards should focus on whether or not students can do something (in this case write well in various genres), not the steps they should take to get there.  Should good writing include correct spelling and appropriate punctuation?  Of course.  Is prewriting important?  Yes.  But myriads of terrible papers have been written with proper pre-writing, review, and punctuation.  These things do not make a good article or research paper. 
          In my opinion, it is essential that students graduate high school capable of writing well thought-out, coherent, compelling papers.  This will indefinitely benefit those who proceed to college, those who gain careers that require any sort of writing, and those who want to be involved citizens who are capable of making their voices heard through the written word.  The new standards focus on this.  They leave teachers, administrators, and school boards to determine how they get the students to the end goal.  In contrast, the old standards focus primarily on the process and whether or not conventions are met with little emphasis on the actual quality of writing.  In other words, the old standards focus on the puzzle pieces, while the new standards examine whether or not the puzzle pieces can be put together to form a compelling picture.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Lexile Scores and Reading Comprehension Wrap-up

          In today's post, I will introduce the measure of text complexity recommended by Common Core and wrap-up my analysis of the Reading Comprehension portion of the new Common Core ELA Standards.  I haven't decided yet if I really want to analyze the lengthy exemplary reading list included in Appendix B of the ELA Standards for the simple reason that they are intended to show examples of the level of text complexity expected at each grade level and are in no way required texts.  However, many adversaries to the Common Core point to the reading list as an example of liberal bias within the standards.  To that extent, it is probably something I will revisit at some future date.
          The information on Lexiles that I will present and remark on today comes from Appendix A of the ELA Standards and the Lexile Framework for Reading website.  At the conclusion of my look at the use of Lexiles, I will present a pro/con section of the new standards as compared to the old.  If you have read my previous posts, you will recognize that these are simply reiterations of the conclusions I have come to based upon my analyses.

The Facts:

  • Appendix A discusses several different methods of measuring text complexity and the reasoning behind each.  It weighs the benefits and difficulties inherent in each method.
  • The Lexile method for measuring text complexity is the one chosen by Common Core to set grade level standards for quantitative text complexity measurement. 
  • Appendix A states that there are also important qualitative measures of text complexity as well as concerns for text appropriateness.  These measures are recommended to be judged by people - teachers, administrators, parents, etc. as they are subjective and/or differ depending on the reader in question.
  • The Lexile method uses word frequency and sentence length to give a numeric Lexile score to a text.  Virtually any text can be input into a Lexile analyzer and a score is given.  
  • I used the free Lexile analyzer from the Lexile Framework for Reading website to analyze my most recent post.  After removing some of the quotations and tables (the free Lexile analyzer only allows up to 1000 words and my post exceeded that amount), the text was given a Lexile score of 1400.
  • The following table from Appendix A shows the expected Lexile range for each grade level grouping:
Figure 3: Text Complexity Grade Bands and Associated Lexile Ranges (in Lexiles)

Text Complexity Grade          Old Lexile Ranges          Lexile Ranges Aligned 
Band in the Standards                                                  
 to CCR expectations

             K-1                                         N/A                                    N/A
             2–3                                     450–725                             450–790
             4–5                                     645–845                             770–980
             6–8                                    860–1010                            955–1155
             9-10                                   960-1115                           1080-1305
          11-CCR                               1070-1220                          1215-1355

  • Lexiles were chosen in large part because they included an associated test to rank students on the same scale that measured text complexity.  

My Opinion:

          Having looked into Lexiles only at a very shallow level, it appears they are an incomplete, but good measure of text complexity.  They provide a numerical basis for measuring textual complexity as well as readers' level of achievement.  More importantly, they allow for the creation of a staircase of increasingly rigorous expectations that should better prepare students to successfully read and comprehend college and work texts.  In my view, it will also better prepare them to read and understand texts that make them better citizens and community members - i.e., voter pamphlets, newspaper articles, proposed legislation.  As I have stated previously, to me this is one of the greatest strengths of the Common Core ELA Standards - an emphasis on teaching students to read complex texts so that they can continue to read, learn, and succeed once they leave high school.
          Whether the Lexile levels are set perfectly at the this point in time has yet to be seen.  My guess is that the stair steps will continue to be refined over time.  If college texts continue to increase in complexity, they will have to be raised at some point in the future.  Individual grade bands may need minor adjustments as well.  Perhaps an even better measure of text complexity will later replace this one.  But the important point here is that there is a focus on text complexity that was lacking in our previous standards.  This addition alone pays great homage to the thought that went into development of the Common Core.
          And now, as promised, my pro/con list.  It is actually an old standards / new standards list.  Here goes:

       Benefits of the Old Standards                   Benefits of the New Standards
They were in no way pushed or promoted             They were pushed by the Feds through
by the Feds.                                                                         both ESEA waivers and Race to the
                                                                                                  Top Grants. 

Every state has its own standards and can              States in the Consortium will share the
change those standards to whatever extent            same standards and students transferring 
they choose.                                                                         from state to state or from high school to
                                                                                                   college can all be expected to have the
                                                                                                   same minimum skill set.

They required 12th graders to use Latin                They require students to use several  
roots to discern unknown words' meanings.          methods for discerning unfamiliar words'
                                                                                                    meaning.

                                                                                                  Students are required to read at
                                                                                                   grade level.  Measures for determining
                                                                                                   what that grade level is are explicitly
                                                                                                   stated, avoiding potential watering 
                                                                                                   down of reading standards.

                                                                                                   Students are required to study seminal
                                                                                                   US texts and foundational documents
                                                                                                   of historical and literary significance.

                                                                                                  There is an increased emphasis on
                                                                                                   informational texts to better prepare
                                                                                                   students for college and careers.

                                                                                                   There is an emphasis on text complexity
                                                                                                   at all grade levels with a stair step
                                                                                                   approach to gaining appropriate
                                                                                                   levels of reading comprehension
                                                                                                   ability before graduation.

          If readers would like to add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify this list, feel free to say so in the comment section.  Make sure you add your reasoning or documentation.  If I need to, I will include an updated list at a later time.  I did not include any of the information on data collection because it is not actually part of the Common Core.  If you see a definitive link between Common Core and a specific intrusive or inappropriate data collection method or propagation, please let me know in the comments as well.  For those of you that know me, if you don't have a Google profile and would like to comment, feel free to do so on Facebook or send me an email.  I can add your remarks to the comment section and will do so with appropriate comments whether I agree or disagree with your assessment.  

Monday, August 5, 2013

Fiction Vs. Non-Fiction - My Recent Insights

          As I have continued considering the breakdown in the new standards between fictional and non-fictional texts, I have had a couple of recent "aha" moments.  Today's post will be fairly short, sharing the facts that led to my newest realizations and the facts that led to those realizations.  Facts and quotes about the new ELA standards come from Arizona's Common Core State Standards found here.

The Facts:

  • In the Introduction to the ELA (English Language Arts) standards, the following chart is given showing the breakdown of Literary and Informational Texts at each grade level:

  • Distribution of Literary and Informational Passages by Grade in the 2009 NAEP Reading Framework
                                                             Grade Literary Informational
                                                                4         50%        50% 
                                                                8          45%       55%
                                                               12         30%       70% 
    Source: National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National
    Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • This paragraph immediately follows the above table: 
"The Standards aim to align instruction with this framework so that many more students than at present can meet the requirements of college and career readiness. In K–5, the Standards follow NAEP’s lead in balancing the reading of literature with the reading of informational texts, including texts in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. In accord with NAEP’s growing emphasis on informational texts in the higher grades, the Standards demand that a significant amount of reading of informational texts take place in and outside the ELA classroom. Fulfilling the Standards for 6–12 ELA requires much greater attention to a specific category of informational text—literary nonfiction—than has been traditional. Because the ELA classroom must focus on literature (stories, drama, and poetry) as well as literary nonfiction, a great deal of informational reading in grades 6–12 must take place in other classes if the NAEP assessment framework is to be matched instructionally. To measure students’ growth toward
college and career readiness, assessments aligned with the Standards should adhere to the distribution of texts across grades cited in the NAEP framework."

My Opinion / Realizations:

           My first realization was that the breakdown between Informational and Literary Texts was not created by the Common Core Consortium.  Instead, they copied the breakdown from recent the breakdown in recent NAEP tests.  And while it is clear in the above paragraph that the intention is to increase the emphasis on informational texts from what it  has previously been, the above breakdown is not stated as a breakdown of exactly what percent of instruction should be geared toward each type of reading, but the breakdown in what should be tested.  Now, obviously, what is going to be tested is likely to be reflected in the curriculum, but in the ideal classroom, how much time is spent on each type of reading should reflect the abilities and needs of the students in the class.  If a student or group of students is already proficient at reading and analyzing informational texts, then more emphasis should be placed on literature in order to meet the standards and vice versa.  In short, the breakdown of informational versus literary texts should be whatever is needed to meet all of the required standards. 

          My second and (to me) more groundbreaking revelation occurred when I began thinking about the breakdown in high school to try to determine how much of an English class would have to consist of non-fiction reading if one were trying to mirror the above chart in the curriculum.  I considered the number of classes a high school student takes.  I would say six is about average.  Some students take before or after school classes and others take fewer than six classes (particularly senior year), but six is likely a pretty accurate average.  Next I made some educated guesses as to the average student schedule.  Assuming two non-academic classes (music, sports, PE, drama, etc.) which require little or no reading, one math class, one social studies class (history, government, economics, etc), one science class (most commonly Biology, Chemistry, or Physics), and one English class we can look at where most reading will take place.  Originally, I considered little or no reading taking place in math classes, but when I thought of my experience in tutoring and how much students struggle with word problems, I realized that there were important reading comprehension tasks that do indeed take place in math classes.  Social studies classes, I think most would agree, should require a considerable amount of reading - perhaps as much as English.  Science, depending on the class, will certainly require some reading, but less for Physics or Chemistry than for Biology.  My guess, then, as to the percent of reading that takes place in each class would be as follows:

          Non-academic classes: ~ 0%
          Math:                           ~ 10%
          Science:                       ~ 20%
          Social Studies:             ~ 35%
          English:                       ~ 35%

          Now, obviously, these calculations are not precise, but even if they are substantially skewed, I believe they will illustrate my point.  If you add up the reading that occurs outside of English, it totals about 65% of all reading.  I doubt there are many occasions where any of this reading would be fictional texts.  Rare exceptions are likely negligible.  Assuming an instructional team is attempting to mirror the NAEP framework, only 5 of the 35% of reading done in English class would need to be non-fiction.  That is 5/35, 1/7, or just under 15%.  If you consider non-fictional reading already occurring in English classes, that percent should be easy to accomplish: looking up definitions of unknown words, reading texts on appropriate methods for citations, researching for persuasive writing assignments, reading about authors and historical events significant to the literature being studied, etc.  I don't know that these percentages represent any increase in the amount of informational texts used by high school students.  The significant difference is not how much of these texts must be used, but the emphasis on complex texts and ensuring that students learn to independently read, comprehend, and make use of these texts.

          After considering the above realizations, I fail to see that there is any attack on the reading and studying of the classics.  I think a well thought-out curriculum should be able to include all of the classics previously studied.  The key is to ensure that the texts being used to teach other subjects are indeed appropriately complex for the grade level using them and that reading comprehension is being encouraged and supported throughout all subjects.  This will make our students not only better readers, but more capable learners.  This is what I want for my kids and for the children in my community - students that finish school not just stuffed with facts of varying levels of importance, but young people who have learned how to learn and will continue doing so for the rest of their lives.