Educational policies requiring scripted reading curriculums limit early childhood pre-service teacher candidates

Abstract

When educational policies require pre-service teacher practicum mentors to continuously implement a mandated scripted reading curriculum, limits are placed on pre-service teachers observing only these reading instruction methods. Novice teachers, who are developing their reading pedagogy, need the opportunity to explore a variety of methods identified as best reading instruction practice. When the pre-service teacher candidates are repeatedly exposed to the scripted methods in practicums, the partnership between the university professors and practicum school systems can suffer. When attempting to bridge theory and practice, the pre-service teacher candidate is affected when they observe conflicting viewpoints between college professors and the hosting practicums during a stage of professional growth and teacher development. If pre-service teachers are without practicum opportunities to try creative reading teaching methods, a result of increased negative outlooks on the profession and future teacher burn-out is a possibility.

Scripted reading programs mandated in practicum settings can limit early childhood pre-service teachers who are attempting to develop their own ideas about reading pedagogy. In an article titled Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, reflective classroom educators explain that preservice teachers “see and understand both theory and practice differently if they are taking coursework concurrently with fieldwork” and thus many teacher prep programs worldwide have moved to a “culminating” clinical experience throughout training to better support their needs (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007; Dewey, 1903). When early childhood focused pre-service teachers are learning how to become reflective reading educators, they benefit from the opportunity to see modeled examples in fieldwork settings (Lipp and Helfrich, 2016). But what happens if practicum experiences only model the implementation of scripted curriculums? What happens when reading theory is strikingly different than what can be observed in classrooms?

Knowing that pre-service teachers need to build and implement lesson experiences, learn how to select tools, differentiate for the exceptional needs, and align newly learned ideas to support them over their teaching career, the role of quality practicum experiences matter (Bernard and Flint, 2020; Holt, 2020). This article discusses the widespread requirement of scripted reading curriculums and shares concerns that policy mandates requiring scripted reading curriculums place limits on early childhood pre-service teachers’ long-term success.

Using fieldwork practicum to learn how to teach reading

Developing a reading pedagogy is important for early childhood pre-service teachers along with having authentic fieldwork practicum experiences. In the 2006 article titled Exemplary Teacher Induction: An International Review, countries from all over the globe including Britain, China, Korea, Germany, United States, Australia, and Canada are recognized for valuing the impact that authentic pre-service teacher preparation programs have on teacher success (Clark et al., 2017; Howe, 2006; Roth et al., 2019). While each country has a unique approach to the structural details mandated in their teacher preparation programs, there is a shared understanding of the positive impact that authentic fieldwork practicum experiences have on future teacher classroom success.

In early childhood and elementary teacher education programs, reading courses are emphasized since young children typically learn to read in early grades. Often times after the sixth grade, students are expected to be readers and rarely receive reading instruction (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007). Teaching reading means working within the child’s zone of proximal reading development, which is important during the early language acquisition stages (Vygotsky and Cole, 1978).

Early learning experiences involving pre-service teachers can be limited when they only see scripted reading programs being implemented in their fieldwork placement settings. Therefore, the decision to mandate scripted, reading curriculum should be carefully reviewed for the impact it can have on pre-service teachers who are primarily exposed to this direct instruction in fieldwork practicums.

Reading research theory versus fieldwork experiences

Throughout history, researchers have questioned educational curriculum and the long-term impact different teaching methods have on learners. Reseachers continuously seek to better understand what works, does not work, and is missing. An example of this is the research report highlighting the observation that direct instruction leads to an increase in juvenile delinquency (Campbell-Phillips, 2020; Davis et al., 2017; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). These study’s findings are still used today.

University reading professors often require teacher candidates engage with activities involving original unit building and individual lesson planning skills that are self-created, culturally responsive, and differentiated based on the practicum classroom needs and individual learning styles they discover in their observations (Urbani et al., 2017). After experiencing years of changes with reading instruction, policy, and research revolutions, often reading professors choose to present a wide view of reading pedagogy in coursework.

Reading professors are not a salesperson attempting to impose a certain commercial reading program upon novice students. Rather, professors often choose to discuss a wide variety of reading instruction methods. Instead of explicitly telling pre-service teachers what to do, often professors require metacognitive thinking about the process of thinking (Young and Fry, 2008). Professors often encourage pre-service teachers to use out-of-the box thinking. This can be seen as a very different approach about the best way to present the art of teaching reading to pre-service teachers.

Negative impacts of scripted reading curriculum

Data reveals that school systems continue to emphasize the widespread use of scripted, mandated reading curriculum throughout countries across the globe (Ben-Peretz and Flores, 2018; Fitz and Nikolaidis, 2020). For pre-service teachers, requiring scripted programs like these have placed limits with creative liberties and attempts to develop teacher identities (Evans et al., 2010). Research shows that often schools require the implementations of these reading programs despite the negative impact on young learners who are beginning to read (Demko, 2010). Schools still spend copious amounts of time and money to promote these ineffective methods (Chrysanthos, 2020; Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007). The 2019 COVID-19 outbreak brings the most recent curriculum challenge. Being forced to transition brick and mortar schooling to online methods left teachers frustrated and lost as they attempted to move mandated curriculum online (Hamilton et al., 2020).

Despite negative impacts found in research, these scripted reading programs are still a major influence in schools across the globe. To a pre-service teacher, these scripted methods can seem as the primary method of how reading instruction is delivered. It is this moment, at a critical learning stage, when the pre-service teachers are beginning to develop their own teaching pedagogy that the observation experience is crucial. This leads to the problem with educational policies that require scripted curriculum be implemented in classrooms used as a model. If fieldwork practicums are in place, then many pre-service teachers are being exposed to these direct instruction methods. These methods are often contradictory to what is being delivered in their coursework by the university professor. This can cause a negative impact and limit pre-service teachers (Holt, 2020; Urbani et al., 2017).

Furthermore, stifled relationships between the university professors and fieldwork practicums are another impact of scripted reading curriculum (Matthews, 2017; Monsen et al., 2017). When pre-service teachers are paired with fieldwork practicums, reading professors face students who question the validity of the scripted curriculum and why there is a need for original planning. Even with efforts to collaborate, when pre-service teachers are asked by college professors to try a different method other than the mandated scripted reading program, they can be questioned and discouraged to practice their original units of study. Some fieldwork practicums see the request for class time to teach original lessons as insubordinate. The pre-service teachers are expected to learn using the adopted reading program in place. Pre-service teachers, who observe these conflicting viewpoints between professors and fieldwork practicums, can develop a negative outlook and a lack of confidence in their field of study. They may feel unsure who they should trust: the reading professor or the fieldwork experience.

The role of politics in reading instruction

There are certainly reasons for politicians to be cognizant of reading progress, or lack of, as it pertains to the people they serve. Historically, there have been cases in which the role of politics, as it relates to education, has been driving forces in major changes (Ben-Peretz and Flores, 2018). It is important to include the experts, use research, and understand the acting forces behind the process of deciding whether or not to mandate a scripted reading program. These situations should be approached with careful attention to the details.

The 1983 report A Nation at Risk is one example of how identified reading-related concerns that were shared with the United States Government led to nationwide changes. The report became a call to action. According to the report findings, educational reform was needed after a large portion of citizens were identified and categorized as not mastering reading skills the needed for life-long success. The lack of observed reading success was believed to be an indicator of national security risks for the United States. The report stated that 23 million American adults, including 13% of 17-year-old students were functionally literate (Gardner, 1983). This data indicated that a large majority of citizens were not literate. Likewise, there are similar reading reports that were conducted and shared with the United States Department of Education including the 1998 report titled Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Balbinot et al., 2016). Other countries, besides the United States, have organized and utilized similar reports to identify reading issues and the impact of the reading decline. Examples are the 2007 Rose Report from the United Kingdom and the 2016 Literacy in Italy report from Italian researchers(National Research Council, 1998; Rose, 2006).

However, if there is a case of misleading, inaccurate, outdated, and/or one-sided reports shared with uninformed leaders, educational success can be at risk. Often misinformation, shared with government leaders, is promoted by political lobbyists and can quickly become a driving force in decision-making that may not be best for reading success. Often, these various political factors found at a variety of governmental levels are to blame for requiring a decided selection of mandated reading curriculum is being taught.

Certain vendors, who may not promote research-based or developmentally appropriate scripted curriculum, can be purchased using governmental funds and then mandated upon the reading teachers. One example from a study in Teacher Education Quarterly highlighted a teacher discussing curriculum and teacher evaluation stated, “some teachers are monitored more frequently, and in some of these schools, the pay of teachers is related to student performance” (Carl, 2014: 43). Various monitoring progress of teachers and the implementation of mandated curriculum, often in the form of teacher evaluations, is in place (Ben-Peretz & Flores, 2018). The success of these programs is often judged by the teacher evaluations from supervisors who document progress. Adding to the stress levels outcomes of these school evaluations can be used to make monetary decisions related to who gets merit pay or funding for future supplies. Student standardized performance tests are often another factor of success. Sadly, if political mandates impose scripted reading curriculum that is ineffective and does not consider educators, researchers, and pre-service teacher training, the process of retaining teachers and increasing student success is at risk.

Making a difference

As a society seeking social change, ensuring that students develop into literate members of the society in which they belong should be a primary focus (Dewey, 1903). To reach our goals, we must maintain collaborative partnerships between university reading professors and fieldwork practicums. Also, it is important that pre-service teachers have continuous opportunities to gain experiences from fieldwork practicums. However, we must also carefully navigate policy and continually focus on refining what we know and what we face to deliver the best reading instruction. Realizing that when healthy connections are formed with educators, there is an increase in teacher effectiveness and improvements are observed with teacher attrition rates once they begin their teaching career (Clandinin et al., 2015). This should be a common goal that can result in local, national, and global change.

Mandated scripted reading curriculum can do more harm than realized. We should consider the comment on the widespread practices of scripted curriculum from Fitz and Nikolaidis (2020) that cautioned this practice of scripted curriculum mandates “…should be carefully monitored by researchers in all countries to understand trends and consequences of usage” (p. 210). These important conversations should not be dictated by political forces. Resolutions are attainable if we evolve into true professional learning communities where reading researchers and educators have a voice in what works best regarding teaching reading to young learners and how to better support pre-service teachers leading the future of change.