| Author | Message | ||
     Nan |
Teach66, What do you mean by success? The original Open Court program gauged part of its success on a definition of reading that is no longer considered as valid by many (ability to sound out words, not making sense from print). How do they define success at Our Lady of Sorrows? If they base success on the results of a test that favors phonics knowledge the children would obviously have an advantage. However, based on criticism of the program, I would say that tasks involving higher order thinking skills or writing might not produce the same result level as children in a more balanced literacy program. Another consideration is how the program works across all grade levels. The Eugene district was particularly critical of the program in the upper elementary grades. Finally, I do not understand your confidence that an "aggressive" program can be good for slow students. How is this a good thing? Since the program is heavily scripted, there is little initiative for teachers to modify or enhance the lesson plans. What accommodations do they make for kids who "just don't get it?" | ||
| Teach66 |
Again, I said we'll see - about the more aggressive program. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing because I know that the old program works with all levels of kids. Works? Okay, I have 3 children that went through the Open Court Method years ago - successfully. And being in that environment I also know of many families that have been through it - not one person having a problem - AGAIN - all levels of kids. Our Lady of Sorrows success? From what I hear there may be a few kids that require extra help/special services but basically - all of the kids pass tests, do quite well on the standardized tests and on their own tests, and eventually graduate from 8th grade and are accepted to the high schools of their choice. Many go to Columbia and are quite successful there as well. I have not heard of many "unsuccessful" cases using Open Court. My friend in Spring Valley (now known as Chestnut Ridge, NY) had 4 children in a school that used it - successfully! She loved it as well. She moved to Barrington, Illinois - and they were using it there. She was thrilled, not only because she felt it was an excellent program but because her kids could easily move right into it. For the thousandth time - I also feel the new program is aggressive and I will be interested to see how it works in a "hetrogenous" group. I'd hate to say: "let's keep our eyes on Our Lady of Sorrows" because what we really should be doing is keeping our eyes on our own "hetrogenous" group right here in the district and coming to some very solid conclusions - quickly! If Open Court is a consideration for this district, maybe someone who oversees the reading program in the district should go over to Our Lady of Sorrows and talk to the principal and some of the teachers to get the positive and negative feedback that they have about the program. Why not? | ||
| Teach66 |
P.S. There are loads of kids from Maplewood and South Orange that go to St. Rose of Lima in Short Hills. So many, that our school district even supplies a bus! Maybe we should try and find out what they're using, successfully. (Although I don't think that group is as "hetrogenous" - actually, I don't think it's "hetrogenous" at all. Probably better off surveying Our Lady of Sorrows.) | ||
| Nan |
Teach66, You are not answering my question. How do you define reading and how do you define success in reading? Without understanding this we cannot evaluate your assertion that Open Court at Our Lady of Sorrows is a success. Just because you and your friends were happy with it does not mean that my friends and me would be or the South Orange Maplewood School district should be running over for a front row view. The research base of the program does not show that it is a successful program. The Eugene evaluation, which harbors no prejudice against it for being a phonics-based program (which I would) still indicates lots of problems that would disqualify it for consideration in many schools. Although OLS may have a heterogeneous student population, I would guess that most of the parents are homogenous in their viewpoint that a reading education should emphasize traditional basic skills. You will not find such a uniform opinion in the public schools. I would not want my child stuck in lots of boring phonics drills out of the context of reading, and filling out worksheets, etc. I also expect that my child will be engaged in hands-on and cooperative activities that develop his writing, speaking, and reading abilities simultaneously. These types of activities are not an integral part of the Open Court program. I also expect my child's teacher to be adapt at modifying a program according to student needs, not following a script like a robot. You are not very forthcoming about what happens to children who cannot adjust to this program. Just because you have not heard of any "unsuccessful cases" does not mean that they do not exist. "Wait and See" is not a good educational strategy without a definite plan about what to do for students who can't keep up. | ||
| Teach66 |
I am not very forthcoming about what happens to children who cannot adjust because quite frankly I haven't seen many. The ones that I've seen have other learning problems which require "special services". When I say successful I mean that yes, the students (almost all of them in each class) can sound out words - to read!!! They move from grade to grade successfully completing the required material in each grade, successfully passing standardized tests, winning essay contests, winning geography bees, winning spelling bees, creating astounding science fair projects, posters, etc. and going on to the high schools of their choice! That I would call successful. You hit the nail on the head: "TRADITIONAL BASIC SKILLS", "PHONICS DRILLS" (however in, and out, of the context of reading.) - and "WORKSHEETS" - What a horror!!! Imagine putting students through all of this!!! - Imagine those poor, "robotic" teachers who actually know what they are going to teach and how they are going to teach it throughout the school year!! And again, those poor children who know what to expect and have concepts to build upon each day!! And the outcome? - A mass MAJORITY of students who have the ability to read, write and speak... (plus all of the above) -and pass standardized/national tests with scores to be proud of!! I'm done with this conversation. If you truly believe that the program that is being used currently in district is the right one - then - great!! If you can't "step out of the box" and take a look at a program that is being used "successfully" right in our own town, I believe that is a shame. Thank you for allowing me to have such a challenging conversation about something I feel very passionate about - the success of the Maplewood/South Orange school district! | ||
| Nan |
Teach66, If you feel so passionate about the Maplewood/South Orange school district how come you never bothered to learn anything about the curriculum that is being used there? Direct quote from you: "What system is the Maplewood/South Orange district using? " My dislike of Open Court is no secret. However, I can see why it would be successful in some schools, and I have taken the time to read and respond to what I consider flaws in the program. I don't think I deserve to be yelled at (that's what you sound like you are doing) for "not thinking out of the box." How about my link to Differentiated Instruction? Did you even bother to read it? I don't think I'm the one with the "Open Mind" problem. | ||
| Alidah |
I used to work with a lot of reading specialists and read their professional journals (I worked in children's book publishing) on a regular basis and got to know the leading "opinion makers" in the field (but I couldn't tell your their names--3 years of having children kind of wipes out your memory). Anyway, after working with this group for 11 years, one thing I learned was that a good reading specialist would never exclusively use a published "program". What they do is figure out what a child's problem is, and then use the latest research and techniques to serve the child. And there is plenty of research out there, enough to fill the pages of several professional journals every year--THE READING TEACHER is one of them. IMHO, a program like Open Court is probably a practical choice for schools like OLS or St. Rose that don't have the resources to support more diverse and personalized methods, but isn't a practical choice for a public school system, especially one like ours. | ||
| Damellon |
Knowing teach, chuckled when I read the response. People would be surprised at how many hands-on individuals have no idea exactly what the district program is called nor how it is implemented. Great research done by both parties. Hope someone will figure this whole mess out. | ||
| Nan |
Alidah, Yes! The method of instruction you describe for reading specialists is also true for good teachers (who are supervised by the Reading Specialist). Your post emphasizes what should be a top priority for every school district: to attract and maintain a staff of experienced,well-trained teachers (and administrators). Experienced, well-trained teachers can walk into a classroom, evaluate the level of the students then and customize lesson plans (Teach66-lesson plans are what teachers use to "know what they are going to do" when they don't have a script to rely on. Just thought you should know) based on the level of the students. They can do continual assessments and adjust the learning strategies as they go along. They can write complex unit objectives with specific outcomes and then carefully scaffold the lessons to achieve those goals. They can pinpoint exactly where individual students need additional work. They can also organize small groups to work on a specific topic or strategy needed. There is a huge difference between a teacher with these qualifications and one without them. Teachers like this are worth their weight in gold. | ||
| Jennie |
Nan: I applaud you request for data showing the success of Open Court. Too often teaching methods are adopted without critical or objective analysis of whether the method is successful (Multiple Intelligences comes to mind). I did follow your link for differentiated teaching, but found only an anecdotal report--are there any research studies you could direct me to? One thing to keep in mind is that a curriculum is only as good as the worst teacher implementing it. I wonder whether we can make assumptions that teachers will be able to effectively implement a method that requires so much initiative, creativity and effort. There may indeed be some teachers who are worth their weight in gold, but are we really better serving our children by putting a curriculum in place that is too difficult for the average teacher to appropriately execute? Just a thought. | ||
| Sac |
Just a clarification ... Multiple Intelligences is not a curriculum, but rather a teaching approach that can be used with whatever curriculum is in place. The curriculum at Seth Boyden (and any other schools where the MI approach is being tried in M/SO) is the same as the rest of the district. I do not know if the Language Arts curriculum has a particular name, so my understanding of it is based on what I see my children doing as well as from the locally authored parent information that is provided from time to time. It is based on a combination of phonics and whole language techniques with a lot of emphasis on writing and it seems to be working for my children, at least so far. | ||
| Deadwhitemale |
Nan: sorry, but reading is decoding the letters; your "not making sense from print..." itself does not make sense. What do you mean? Is decoding letters the functional equivalent of "not making sense from print?" And as to our district's success, just look at the scores posted by Fringe. Do so at your own philosophical peril. The dog that didn't bark is our district scores on every standardized test given, year after year. So, the enemy is our curriculum, the curricula coordinators and apathetic parents, ignorant Board of Ed members and top officialdom which does not give a darn. DWM | ||
| Cbbk |
DWM- maybe they just can't decode the scores.  from what I see,a change in the curriculum is a necessity at this point for both Language Arts and Math. cbbk | ||
| Nan |
Jennie, I do agree that it is important to cautiously evaluate all information available about a program before considering implementation (Although I think I'm more comfortable with Multiple Intelligence than you seem to be from your post). However, I'm not sure I can lay out a guaranteed carved in stone success story for differentiated instruction. If you look at ESPA and IOWA scores in towns which employ differentiated classroom instruction (examples: Livingston, Chatham, East Hanover, District 2 in New York City-for a more heterogeneous example) they are showing continuously improving achievement. While I am sure there are research studies specifically focusing upon the efficacy of Differentiated Instruction (It is based on lots of scientific research-all found in the links listed below)-I have only recently found out it even existed, based on familiarity with district curricula (ie. I know some teachers)! I probably know slightly more than you do about it! As a result, I have been reading more about it lately and I mentioned it in this thread because I thought it sounded so much more interesting that a packaged product like Open Court, and its goals relate specifically to the needs of our heterogeneous school district. Since it is being used in many schools, I'm sure someone is compiling longitudinal research statistics as we speak-as I find out more I will keep you posted. Your concern about the efficacy of a program that is taught by its worse practitioners is a good insight (Perhaps you are an educator?). This is why teachers are always attending teacher-training, either as district-wide inservices, or through the many summer sessions offered by reputable teacher training institutions. I don't think many late 20th-21st century educational approaches are easily taught by the brain-dead, or those on auto-pilot (was this ever possible, except with a scripted program?). The teaching strategies used in Differentiated Instruction are based on selecting from "best practices" already in use. I think most teachers will be familiar with the implementation of lessons-they may need the most work in developing more accurate assessment abilities. LINKS: Do a search for "Differentiated" in the Association for Supervision and Curriculum (ASCD) web site: http://www.ASCD.org/search.html Some resources from ERIC, the major educational clearing house http://ericeece.org/pubs/digests/2000/tomlin00.html A study about how this type of curriculum helps gifted and talented students: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/westarc2.html | ||
| Damellon |
Nan, I find it hysterical that you vehemently argued with Teach66 about the Open Court program as being unable to support those at the lower end, while giving a web site that supports how differentiated learning helps gifted and talented students. All of your handouts give a lot of information about theory but no clear-cut, long-term results. Sounds like a lot of "everything is beautiful" and "do your own thing" jargon. This is basically what the district is currently struggling with. In a perfect world with highly skilled, highly motivated and highly trained teachers who have multi intelligence students that are eager to learn, highly motivated and well behaved, your theories may work. (Please note that all of your material refers to experts and teachers who have been intensively trained in these theories.) I agree with Teach66. Take a walk three blocks into South Orange and see real teachers teaching real (multi intelligence) students and getting real results at Our Lady of Sorrows. If you dare! | ||
| Damellon |
P.S. Just another thought. By saying that a teacher who provides the services you mentioned and is as skilled as you mentioned is "worth their weight in gold", isn't that also saying that they are a RARE jewel a/k/a one in a million?! And whose gold is it that will be spent on a multitude of this teacher? | ||
| Jennie |
Nan: Thanks for the links. Tomlinson's book looks interesting and I agree with much of its premise (struggling learners shouldn't be left to sink or swim, high achievers shouldn't be punished with extra work). You're right that many of her ideas are simply common sense good teaching. The groupings sound suspiciously like the reading groups we had in the 1960's (although this is vehemently denied, since the new groupings have fluidity (I remember promotions from the old days) and kids can group themselves (strikes me as silly, but I'm not an educator, I just play one on tv)). I still have reservations about whether some of her more lofty goals can be consistently implemented across settings. The theory is wonderful, but is helpful only if it can be carried out (sometimes less is more). And I can't shake the feeling that the supervision and training currently in place in this district is totally insufficient to effectively implement and oversee a method that relies so heavily on individualized assessments, individualized and every changing goals and continuous modification of curriculum for each learner. If this is the method used by the school district, I guess the proof will be in the pudding. And my cynical reaction to an earlier comment that reading specialists would never use a published curriculum--to do so would be against their self-interest (why would we need reading specialists if the school could rely on a published curriculum?). Of course each intervention should be tailored to an individual child, but I think it is predictable when consultants and others who make their living from advising people so readily dismiss cheap, widely available guidance (often written by people much brighter than the ones dismissing it). | ||
| Nan |
Dead, I am a little surprised at your question, considering how many "discussions" we have had over Whole Language vs. Phonics (please, lets not let this inspire another one!). To briefly explain: I consider reading, and learning to read as a "meaning-making" process. This is different from a more traditional phonics-based approach that assumes that children must first learn to use letter/sound combinations before attempting to engage in meaningful reading. Since readers need more than phonics to read, I think it makes the most sense to teach phonics within the context of "meaningful print" (example: a story) rather than just isolated words (phonics drills). Some people also think you should not use what they consider dumb books that do not mimic real speech (like Dick and Jane). But, since "Go Dog Go" is one of my favorite books (I consider it the kindergarten version of "On the Road!), I think they get a little carried away. And speaking of dogs (since you mention them too)·. there are some like the Basenji who cannot bark even if they wanted to. But that is sometimes considered an asset, not a problem by the owners! Here is a link to some useful "basic fact" sheets on related topics. http://www.heinemann.com/code/template.ghc?direct=search_titles&dw=view&book_id=1178#facts Cbbk, Why do you assume that the curriculum is the problem in our district since it is the same or similar curriculum being used in towns with very high test scores? The main difference between our town and others with higher scores is the number of pupils of low socioeconomic (SES. There is a proven correlation between low SES and low-test scores. Obviously the big challenge is to change this, while still providing quality education for high and middle SES students. What is your proposed solution to that challenge? And if you think we need to change the curriculum that what would you choose? Damellon, I'm glad you find my post so amusing, but before I take credit for being the David Letterman of the MSO message board I must point out that your conclusions about what I said indicate that you did not even read it! Had you read it you would have understood why I did not supply the excruciatingly detailed validity statistics you seem to need, although, for some reason, you don't seem bothered by Open Court's shady research base. Where do I say that Differentiated Instruction is only for the Gifted and Talented? I did include a study that showed it was effective for that group, but that does not preclude its use for others (was that not the major purpose of why I suggested it in the first place?) I think that gifted study is interesting, because we spend so much time talking about strategies for slow learners, that we sometimes forget that we have a lot of gifted students who also have overlooked needs. I don't need to visit OLS to be convinced that Open Court is a successful program in that school. If I were the principal there, I would probably select the same or similar curriculum. I wish, for one moment, you could also try to understand why I, and many people in the public school system would not want to use it,and why we feel that warts and all, we already have something better. I also wish that you and Teach66 would stop insulting the entire teaching profession by portraying everyone who does not use a boxed curriculum as existing in a world of total anarchy. As for your second post: I did not mean to imply that good teachers were akin to spotted owls in their rarity! Just that a district should hold this type of teacher (BA or preferably MS degree and 3+ years of experience) as the model for district staffing goals. I have heard (on this board) that MSO has some problems attracting and holding on to experienced teachers, and I feel that if this is true, it should be a addressed as a top priority problem. I used the "worth their weight in gold" as an analogy, because I am well aware of how teachers are funded through tax dollars around here and how controversial that is. I wanted to put my two cents in about how I feel that spending tax money on good teachers is money well-spent. I guess you would disagree. | ||
| Nilmiester |
Nan- Why does MSO have problems attracting and holding on to teachers? When a teacher leaves is there an exit interview? What are the reasons? | ||
| Nan |
Nilmister, I don't know. Manley is the one who mentioned the problem. |
