5.6.1 Literacy‐relatedprofessionaldevelopmentforsecondaryteachers
The need for secondary teacher training (pre‐ and in‐service) in the theories of reading
development, assessment and diagnosis of reading difficulties, and effective methods
of targeted remedial instruction is clear (National Institute for Literacy, 2007), but it
requires substantial time and financial expenditure to enable teachers to learn, reflect,
plan, share ideas, work with individual students, and complete administration and
paperwork (Wylie, 2013, p. 23).
The importance of literacy development in schools is acknowledged by the Ministry
and, in recent years in New Zealand, there have been a number of Ministry‐driven
literacy development initiatives: “Learning through Language”, “Building blocks: A
cross‐curricular approach”, “Secondary Literacy Project” (using the Effective Literacy
Strategies book), “Secondary Literacy Project” – second instalment (using literacy
leaders and focus groups). The Secondary Literacy Project was discontinued in 2012.
Each of these initiatives had valuable elements, but cost and time resulted in each
being wholly abandoned – baby and bathwater.
Ministry‐provided professional development is now very difficult to acquire. Currently,
if literacy professional development is required by a secondary school, they must apply
for a Professional and Learning Development contract with the Ministry. Contracts are
allocated on the Ministry assessment of “priority of need” with a focus on “priority
learners”, namely Māori and Pasifika students, students with special educational
needs, from low socio‐economic backgrounds or “in care” (Ministry of Education: Te
of a series of workshops and occasionally some supplementary support. These
contracts are narrow in focus, failing to cater for the comprehensive needs of
secondary teachers teaching students at every level of literacy development.
Just as one‐size‐fits‐all assessment and instruction for students is not effective for all,
the same professional development for all schools and all teachers within a school will
not be effective for all. Individual teachers will have different needs with regard to the
type of knowledge each currently possesses and the knowledge each will need to help
cater to his/her students’ specific literacy needs. Additionally, in the secondary school
context where each student is taught by many teachers it would be inefficient and
somewhat redundant for every teacher to be carrying out the same assessment and
implementing exactly the same instruction. Literacy assessment, teaching and learning
needs to be coordinated at a higher level to ensure a comprehensive and efficient
system is in place to serve the needs of teachers and students.
Many secondary schools have developed Professional Learning Groups – small groups
of teachers across departments with a shared goal for developing teaching practice to
improve student achievement. Groups share knowledge of teaching tools and
strategies, often implementing a professional inquiry process to assess the success of a
chosen approach to teaching. However, establishment of a PLG does not ensure
successful professional development (Baldwin, 2008). Although in some circumstances
sharing knowledge held by individuals within a group can be beneficial, the value of
this is limited to what the collective already knows. The results of this study indicate
that if every teacher who contributed to this study was involved in the same PLG and
literacy‐related knowledge, staff at these schools could learn a great deal. However,
the reality of time‐ and cost‐limits on professional development in secondary schools
means that this would be impossible. PLGs can benefit from employing an expert from
outside of the school, but the cost of such a venture is inhibitory.
Sustained, high‐quality professional development is needed if any literacy program is
to be implemented effectively (Deshler, Palincsar, Biancarosa, & Nair, 2007). “When
schools develop a comprehensive literacy plan, they amplify their chances for
successfully improving adolescent literacy” (p. 57).
5.6.2 Acaseforin‐schoolliteracyspecialists
“Reading/literacy specialists or literacy coaches in middle and high schools are still
sorely needed” (International Reading Association, 2012, p. 3). Secondary teachers
require in‐depth, on‐going, easily accessible support to develop understanding of
literacy assessment and instruction and to improve literacy‐related practices. Boards
of Trustees would like clearer assessment data to help with allocation of resources
(Wylie, 2013, p. 42). An onsite literacy specialist could cater to these needs.
Furthermore, in the secondary school environment, a comprehensive literacy plan
requires coordination across subject areas so that students are receiving appropriate
literacy support in all their classes. Such coordination requires collaboration and
cooperation from all teachers (Deshler, Palincsar, Biancarosa, & Nair, 2007). A subject‐
neutral literacy teaching and learning specialist could help foster such collegial
interaction.
Many schools have Literacy Leaders – middle managers with varying degrees of
leaders in secondary schools (Barrar, 2010) including key roles such as “Planning,
coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum” and “Promoting and
participating in teacher learning and development”, but it neglects to indicate the
need for expertise in the field of literacy education. In order to be an effective
teacher‐educator – as a literacy leader should be – it is vital to have a solid
understanding of the subject matter and to continue developing relevant knowledge
and skills.
According to ERO (Education Review Office, 2012), literacy leaders should:
‐ evaluate the literacy needs of the whole school by coordinating assessment at
classroom and individual student levels;
‐ construct comprehensive plans for teacher professional development and
support, and coordinate supplementary support for individual teachers and
students based on need;
‐ keep abreast of current research to identify and select appropriate assessment
and instructional tools and subsequently train teachers to use these for
greatest effect;
‐ report directly to the school board to keep them informed of staff and student
needs to enable adequate resourcing, and to provide evaluation of success of
instructional programs.
Only an appropriately qualified, on‐site literacy specialist with sufficient allocated time