| Author | Message | ||
     Truthseeker (Truthseeker) |
Will South Mountain School parents support the rumored candidacy of ex-Lieberite and former board member, Shelly Slafkes as a replacement for Maryanne Sender on the SO/M School Board? Ms. Sender has said that "now that the district is headed in the right direction," she can retire. She is the last of 4 members of the 1996 board and only sitting board member who were/are also parents of South Mountain sudents. Ms. Slafkes who chose not to run at the expiration of her last term, which she had won with 900+ votes (finishing 4th or lower in a field of 6 in every school zone but South Mountain and Marshall), will best be remembered as a member of the boards that rubber-stamped former superintendet Ralph Lieber's curriculum that included the full implemenation Whole Language and Chicago Math for the district. | ||
| Tracks (Tracks) |
I thought the Chicago Math was a successful program and the only correct thing that Lieber did. Or was that program a bomb too? Kind of hard to know who to support till we know who else is running. Let's hope that the turnout will be better than it has been in past elections. | ||
| Deadwhitemale (Deadwhitemale) |
That math program has resulted in district scores that can be compared to other districts and our own, before Chicago Math. We now score in the middle of district factor groups at least two groupings below ours. But, the board and super do nothing about it. This is the 90's tradition, now on the verge of being ratified in this decade. The program is inferior. But, once chosen, no administrator can admit a mistake was made. So the program continues. It is also expensive to administer, because the workbooks can not be re-used. Tenured teachers, some, those who remember better times, supplement the program with their own materials. Parents buy drill and skill materials which they supply teachers, and use at home. The program fails the students who need a good program most, as explained on line two years ago. Research from Johns Hopkins was referenced. But, our educrats never make mistakes. So, do the best you can for your own children. The system just sails on. DWM | ||
| Silkcity (Silkcity) |
Hmm... I've been teaching for more than ten years, and I hear -- and have experienced -- lots of good things re: Chicago Math. And I can't imagine what's wrong with Whole Language. Do you remember what was there before? I do, and I think Whole Language is a huge improvement. And I must tell you that the cost of consumables, workbooks that can't be reused, isn't always relevant. When teachers have, say, one workbook or supplemental materials, we make lots and lots and lots of copies. Those cost, too, and are often difficult for students to hang onto, sort correctly, hand in, etc. If parents don't want to drill and skill at home, I hope they're not doing so. That sounds tough. Kids learn all the time, no matter what, and I think they're much better off playing with their parents, doing a puzzle, even doing real-lif e math errands than workbooking at home. T | ||
| Tracks (Tracks) |
Glad to hear your comments silk. my daughter went through the schools and I was pretty impressed with the Chicago Math. Her SAT scores were very good. | ||
| Tip (Tip) |
how can i learn more about chicago math? | ||
| Fringe (Fringe) |
In February the New Jersey State Department of Education will once again release a Report Card for every school in the state. Is there any thought that the objective, impartial data found there will show an improvement of this district's compartive scores on standardized tests with other districts in it's socio-economic group or the District Factor Group immediately below? Is the district's poor comparative performance due to the curriculum or the students? Or doesn't the curriculum fit the student body. | ||
| Deadwhitemale (Deadwhitemale) |
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth (Ucnthndlthtruth) |
Silkcity: ("can't imagine what's wrong with Whole Language") From Education Week, December 13, 2000 Report Criticizes Whole Language (just one of the most recent studies from a long list indicating serious problems with the whole language "philosophy") Early reading instruction is ineffective in many American schools, and teachers' stubborn loyalty to whole-language instruction is perpetuating the problem, contends a report sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. "Although most state education agencies, school districts, and federal agencies claim to embrace 'balanced' reading instruction—implying that worthy ideas and practices from both whole-language and code-emphasis [or phonics-based] approaches have been successfully integrated—many who pledge allegiance to balanced reading continue to misunderstand reading development and to deliver poorly conceived, ineffective instruction," the report maintains. The report's author, Louisa Cook Moats, the director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Intervention Project, argues that combining whole-language instruction with some phonics-based teaching is ineffective. Whole-language advocates believe children learn the sounds and structure of language in the context of reading rich literature, while proponents of phonics-based instruction argue that basic reading skills must be taught explicitly. "A marriage of these perspectives is neither possible nor desirable," Ms. Moats writes. She urges educators to challenge the "legacy of whole language" through state policies that emphasize the importance of teaching basic reading skills and revamped teacher-preparation programs that provide graduates with knowledge of reading research and effective instructional practices. "Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of 'Balanced' Reading Instruction" is available for free by calling (888) TBF-7484. —Kathleen Kennedy Manzo http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew_printstory.cfm?slug=15report.h20 | ||
| Nakaille (Nakaille) |
Anybody else see the reference to Chicago Math in the NYT article on the Edison Schools (the company, not the town)? Edison has gotten a foothold in the NYC public school system to try to improve the 5 worst-performing schools in the district. They apparently use Chicago Math and Success for All (reading.) I know that Success for All is highly programmed with lots and lots of drills. (Phonics-based, I'd think.) I'd like to hear from more teachers with experience with these and other programs/approaches if possible. Thank you. Bacata | ||
| Tip (Tip) |
Thanks dwm. | ||
| Deadwhitemale (Deadwhitemale) |
You are welcome. We have a whole language cast running our English Department, down to identifying it as the Language "Arts" department. But many in the audience know a bad show when they attend. Do what you have to to increase the learning afforded your children, and remember who on the Board helped, if anyone! DWM | ||
| Debby (Debby) |
This area of curriculum has been called "language arts" for at least 25 years, all over the country, at the elementary level. I will repeat again, lest anybody without kids in the district believe all the rants posted here: THE LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IS FORMALLY, AND IN PRACTICE, A HYBRID OF PHONICS AND WHOLE-LANGUAGE. The approach to reading and writing development is literature rich. Children are encouraged to write from a very early age (i.e., kindergarten), and therefore spelling mistakes are tolerated at the beginning. There is also a strong emphasis on direct phonics instruction, handwriting practice, etc. I encourage people who want to know more about the schools to visit them and talk to parents. | ||
| Nohero (Nohero) |
Debby - As I have said before to other posters, if you are going to drag facts into these discussions, you are just going to ruin the fun for some of these guys. J | ||
| Nakaille (Nakaille) |
Thanks for posting, Debby. Good advice, too, to visit the classrooms. Nohero, thanks for repeating your point. Made me smile last time, too. Bacata | ||
| Mck |
Facts, yes facts. very important. The fact is that the intellectual underpinnings and theories of WL have been totally discredited. the NIH study, Chall, Adams, et al. have ended that discussion for all time. What's left is a WL gloss, the literature and emphasis on early writing stuff. That's not unique to WL, of course, but it's what the die hards hang on to. So, any teacher who actually thinks that phonics and WL are two equally valid systems that just have to be balanced for optimum effect: is woefully, dangerously, uninformed. Parents, do go into the classroom. Make sure that phonics is being taught systematically. Creatively, yes, but systematically. The most perfect balanced approach to reading does exist in this town, actually, but it is at OLS, and is called Open Court. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
Now, now Debby, you seem to be implying that there are some "non-truths" being written here by those of us who see things differently. That's not very nice ! I have heard your line("The approach to reading and writing development is literature rich. Children are encouraged to write from a very early age (i.e., kindergarten), and therefore spelling mistakes are tolerated at the beginning. There is also a strong emphasis on direct phonics instruction, handwriting practice, etc.")almost verbatim from many teachers, reading specialists, and administrators in our district. The fact is, it just ain't so ! Little if any time classroom time is spent on phonics. Only when little Johnny still can't read and write in 2nd and 3rd grade does he get phonics. And where, pray tell, does he get it from ? Resource room and or private tutoring !!! Been there, done that . Pleeeaase ! Save your, "encouraged to write from a very early age" ... combined with "strong emphasis on direct phonics instruction" to some poor newcomer or childless perspective home buyer who does not know better ! 'Cause it's downright insulting ! | ||
| Nakaille |
U: could it possibly be that Debby's family's factual experience of phonics teaching in the early grades is different from your family's experience? Do you honestly know what goes on in every kindergarten, first and second grade classroom every day throughout the district? Pray tell, how do you come by this intimate knowledge of every child's experience of schooling in Maplewood and South Orange? And if Debby happens to be a teacher do you think that all teachers lie about this stuff? And what if Debby were both a teacher and a parent in this system? I believe there is certainly room for improvement in both curriculum and instructional methods but here you are scolding Debby for her supposed "non-truths" when you are claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have. "Been there, done that" sounds like you have a family member with a serious reading difficulty. Is it automatically the school's fault?? I have a young friend in Montclair (high schooler now) who has extreme difficulty reading despite being a very bright kid. She excels in school because she tapes every class and listens to the tapes and has a tutor. She manages AP courses. It is not fun for anyone in the family. She is considering going into medicine. It is not going to get any easier for her. But her family does not blame the school system. Their older child went through and learned to read just fine (as do most of the children in Maplewood and South Orange.) But at least perhaps you have clued us in to the reason for the venom behind many of your postings concerning the school system, the teachers, the administrators and the reading specialists. Do you really think they are in some big conspiracy to deprive our children of reading skills? Bacata | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
Nakaille/Bacata : Although I'm probably wasting my time, here it goes. First, my position has never been, nor is it now, that whole language doesn't work for some children. The issue I was talking about was the official "we use a combination of both whole language and phonics" line I have heard ad nauseam. I have not had that experience, my children have not had that experience, my neighbor's children have not had that experience , and my friends from other schools within the district have not had that experience. In fact, I have had conversations with several teachers, including reading specialists within the district (those willing to be candid), about the need for more phonics instruction in the classroom. I have had these same conversations with educators outside of this district. This particular phenomenon is not unique to Maplewood/South Orange. Are many children doing just fine learning how to read through whole language ? Undeniably, yes. However,... many... many are not! No reasonable person would buy a car with a 50% breakdown/recall record or speak so highly of a rail service with a 50% off schedule/breakdown record. Why defend such an obviously flawed ( well researched and documented as such) curriculum for reading and writing ? Because "Debby" said it was OK ? Silkcity, a teacher and a WL defender, claims she has never even heard of a problem with WH! I'm sorry, but in my opinion , that is just plain preposterous ! (and if actually true, does that not have some bearing on the value of her opinion, even as a teacher, on this issue? } Read other's and my past posts on this issue if you want facts. I am certainly not alone.(Articles, educational studies led by independent agencies, test studies, documented system wide failures [California]etc.) Or do some research of your own. I don't claim to know what every child's experience is. I have formed what I believe to be a extremely well-informed opinion on the subject. As for venom; No venom from me.  Just issues, facts and opinions. | ||
| Blh |
My daughter is in Kindergarten and is being taught the letter sounds and how to work through reading a word. She's encouraged to write, even though at age 5, she isn't expected to know how to spell properly. Perhaps, U, your experience isn't recent? |
