IRA vs. NCTE

Though as a teacher and a NWP TC, I thought the idea that there was a difference between reading and writing was absurd.  But now I think it is indeed true.  I've attended both NCTE and IRA, and there are differences in tone at each conference. 

IRA, attended mostly by US reading specialists and higher ed faculty, seems to be more concerned with struggling readers and implementing RTI (Response to Intervention, a tiered system that emerged from the most recent reauthorization of IDEA 2006, the Individuals with Disabilities Act).  NCTE seems to be more concerned with moving the teaching of English away from just about anything that constituted the "traditional" teaching of English.  What does this mean?  You probably aren't going to see a whole lot on Shakespeare and grammar workbooks there - except in the vendor areas.  Both conferences have an interesting dichotomy between the content of the sessions and what is being hawked in the "marketplace areas."  I really question just how many sessions some practioners attend.  Instead, they are lured away from the content by free gifts and author signings.  I have no issue with author signings, but when you must wait for nearly an hour for a book to be signed and therefore miss sessions, you must really questions why you (or more likely, your school district) paid over $200 for the conference, for hotel, meals and often airline tickets. Is the conference about learning more or getting free posters? 

The vendors sell promises of making the teaching of reading easier by "taking out the hard work."  I know how much work teaching involves, but I'm always leery when someone tries to sell me something by promising that it "takes the thinking out."  Interestingly, at IRA, this is advantageous to many teachers.  If they need a scientifically based program and they must maintain fidelity to the program (i.e., read from a script or simply plan for the next day by turning a page in the teacher's manual), why go to sessions?  (Both the terms "scientifically-based" and "fidelity to the program" figure prominently in the language of the 2006 reauthorization of IDEA, and teachers must select and use programs that are in compliance with the law.)  Maybe their districts ARE sending them to find the best "program" so they are in compliance wih federal law? 



IRA primarily has an elementary feel.  If secondary teachers are in attendance, they are generally reading specialists.  Many (if not most) of the attendees are married to programs that are "scientifically-based" and to which they must maintain "fidelity."  Using graphic novels and movie making software are great, but they are at the periphery of the "typical" attendees concerns.  Please don't get me wrong, the Heinemann booth (a publisher that certainly "keeps the thinking in") was thronged, but even they have, by necessity, become more programmatic.

 By contrast, NCTE seems to take the opposite tone.  Attended primarily by high school, but also by middle and elementary teachers, NCTE seems to embrace that which is novel - no pun intended.  Session proposals that focus on the "anti-cannon" are more likely to be accepted.  NCTE seems to promote a questioning of the norm and has a wider range of conference attendees.  As if discussed in previous posts, NCTE developed both the National Day of and Gallery of Writing.  Though reading is by no means discounted by NCTE, reading seems to be a conduit for thinking.  Comprehension is obviously the ultimate goal of reading teachers, but, following the lead of the National Reading Panel, it is the last ciritical skill after phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and vocabulary.