Printer-friendly version

“Reading is boring,” Nelly said. “I can read good and stuff, but I just don’t like to.” Nelly, an 8^th grade student, was not doing well in her classes. In an effort to engage her in schoolwork, I was trying to engage her in a discussion of reading. It wasn’t going well. “I’ve always hated reading,” she continued, “and last year my grade went down.”  “What grade?” I asked. There were no separate grades for reading at QSI.  She rolled her eyes: “My ELA grade. You know, the TEST.” I tried to understand this answer. “So,” I asked her, “you think reading means taking a test?” She paused. “Well, yeah,” she finally said. “What else is it?” I gestured toward a glass case filled with brand new books half-hidden by salivating students. Nelly shuddered. “Yuck. I hate reading books.”

The late reader-response theorist Louise Rosenblatt found that most schools emphasize what she termed an “efferent” stance towards reading—one that encourages students to read for information and understanding—over  an “aesthetic” stance—one that respects and cultivates the reader’s “lived through” experience of the text. Nelly’s conception of reading-as-ELA-test was troubling because it affirmed the centrality of efferent reading in her life. Many students come to us in the 6^th grade defining literacy as test prep. Many have decent ELA scores but are reluctant to read and unable to write. One QSI goal for 6^th grade ELA is to inculcate a love of reading and invite students to explore their thoughts in more than one paragraph. Nelly had not yet broken free from the old paradigm. “Why don’t you try this one,” I suggested, hoping to tantalize her with a book featuring a young girl looking towards the sky as if for answers. Nelly was outraged. “You want me to read a book when the ELA test is tomorrow? I don’t think so.” “Next week, Nelly. Come back next week and I’ll find you a book,” I called after her. This probably sounded like a threat, but she waved. I would see her next week. It’s hard to get lost in a small school.

QC/QSI Collaborations

The literature on school-university partnerships is both frightening and wonderful. When partnerships work well, everyone from the college president to the sixth grade student, benefits. Bitterness and frustration characterize partnerships that do not work well. Four goals consistently characterize the most successful partnerships: they improve student learning, prepare future educators, provide ongoing professional development, and conduct research for the purpose of improving practice. Unsurprisingly, the programs that thrive at QSI have many of these components. The Career Institute, a program that flourishes with guidance from QC Professor Dr. Lourdes M. Rivera and the pedagogical expertise of QSI teachers, has all of them.

Student Learning: The overarching goal of the Career Institute is to prepare students for college and careers. It does so by asking students to take a look at their own interests and abilities and recognize how the work they do now influences their opportunities later. Students who perceive the connection between the work they do in school and their future goals show increased effort. Prepare Future Educators: Dr. Rivera helps prepare future school counselors. Counseling interns and graduate students participate at QSI, sometimes with Bobby Pineiro (himself a former QC student) and sometimes with Dr. Rivera to facilitate Career Institute activities.

Provide On-going Professional Development: Before the Career Institute began this fall, Dr. Rivera provided the research-based rationale for the program and introduced its overall purpose. This Monday, we will reflect back on the lessons and encourage teachers to examine ways in which career development may be integrated into their daily lessons.

Conduct Research to Improve Practice: Students and teachers are surveyed to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. Based on observations, surveys and faculty input, the lessons and vision of the Career Institute evolves.