| Author |
Message |
    
C Bataille
Citizen
Username: Nakaille
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 1:00 pm: |     |
Seth Boyden has TV Turn-off, too.
My kid has been ruminating about dropping out (she's on the strictest level, which is just a little more than what we had in place as family policy). I offered her the incentive that if she stayed in it through the rest of the school year I'd take her to a bookstore at the start of summer vacation and give her $20 to spend. She, of course, doesn't realize I would have done that anyway. But, she's got her motivation back and I'm happy, too.
Cathy |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:33 pm: | |
lumpyhead,
I posted the following on Feb. 23 in another thread and it's worth repeating here because it sums up my point of view. It is from the International Reading Association, which I believe is a truly independent, non-profit organization for teachers of reading. Their website is here:
http://www.reading.org/focus/beginning.html
Their website states emphatically:
"Based on current scientific evidence, the International Reading Association maintains that there is no single program, professional service, or instructional material that has been proven to be successful in teaching all learners to read. To aid teachers, parents, and policymakers in the selection of materials for the instruction of reading, the International Reading Association offers the following recommendations and cautions:
"-- It is unethical for reading professionals and publishers or manufacturers of materials or devices to claim or guarantee success for all learners. Individuals who seek to purchase reading programs and materials should examine evidence of instructional success in guiding their purchase decision or product selection."
I posted at that time and will repeat again:
"I am emphatically NOT calling people who want a change in the current curriculum unethical or even wrong."
I am simply objecting to ANY claim made by ANYBODY that science has established which program of reading instruction is the best to use in our schools.
The International Reading Association further states:
"There is no single method or single combination of methods that can successfully teach all children to read. Therefore, teachers must be familiar with a wide range of methods for teaching reading and have a strong knowledge of the children in their care so they can create the appropriate balance of methods needed for each child. Further, these professionals must have the flexibility to modify those methods when they determine that particular children are not learning"
When I posted this previously, C.Bataille wrote a post within the thread to another post that also sums up my own view. I hope she doesn't mind my quoting her (and by doing so, I am not implying she ever agrees with anything I say). She wrote to another poster:
"You make a large assumption in your 8 a.m. post that there is such a thing as a Language Arts curriculum that works "for all students." From what I've seen in reading what experts on all sides of the debate indicate, as well as upfront views of students in a large district in NJ THERE IS NOT SUCH THING.[emphasis in the original] Don't we all wish there were and wouldn't we all nominate the creator for a Nobel prize?"
Hope that makes it clear my major area of disagreement with Suzanne's post. She also unfortunately misstates the situation with mammograms: there is no such scientific consensus about their value. While anybody can be in error about the current state of scientific research in any field (the full-blown controversry over mammograms is recent), I still want to express my concern that materials I've read coming from ACE claiming there proposed reading preferences are "scientifically-based" or "independently reviewed" are misleading. Scientific authority is being invoked incorrectly.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 6:56 pm: | |
I don't know what to say to people who want to know about me personally because of the views I post here. Although lecturing in philosophy at Columbia University is not the full extent of my experience in education, one of the things I made sure I got across to students is that it is essential to be able to look at any statement for what it is without an appeal to an authority figure. One should take a look at one's own urges to personalize every argument It is a ridiculous feature of MOL that so many posters cannot read a statement, independent of its source, and discuss its validity or invalidity based on the content of the statement. It's particularly disappointing in the education thread, I hope for obvious reasons. People want to focus on the personality of the speaker or discredit the speaker if they feel threatened by the statement. Immature, no?
Bookgal, I live in this town and this is a democracy and I'm responsible for the quality of education in its schools. I think there needs to be a full discussion of the issues and I welcome everybody's participation. I have read on this board plenty of opinions of parents and others involved in the schools that are --- well, how does one put it? Views you certainly hope are not part of the governing educational philosophy of the schools.
Last but not least, one tires of the double-standards applied. Many of the most vociferous posters in the education thread send their children to private schools. Yet certain posters never question them about their private lives or credentials.
You and others, perhaps without meaning to, sound threatened that I have challenged Suzanne Ryan's statement. I've been challenging the statements of 3rd grade teachers since I was in 3rd grade. I'm not likely to stop any time in the foreseeable future.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:16 pm: | |
It just occurred to me to suggest something to some of you: Why don't you ask the people in ACE what they know about science? What's their background in it?
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1220
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
(moved over from placement in wrong thread caused by early morning lack of coffee).
John,
Evidently there has not been sufficient repetition on MOL, because not much sense seems to be getting through your thick skull. Please stop stating that I think you are in cahoots with the publishers or NICHD. I have never even hinted at such a thing. I would, however, like to hear you comment on the many, many conflicts of interest that have been identified. And even if NCLB were fully funded, it would still be a bad program, aimed at dismantling public education. Did you read the post I put in about the four year olds loosing naps to academic drills? That's one of the places where all this nonsense is heading.
And don't tell me you or ACE are not in favor of scripted programs or loosing the arts to more reading as is the case in California. That is exactly what YOU proposed when you uploaded the Torgenson report to MOL and announced to us all that this was what we should be studying as a model. The Florida school in that report, eliminated other stubjects to teach more reading, and even decreased time devoted to math. ACE member, Breal also stated recently that she thought it would be fine if the kids lost out on social studies to get more phonics. Finally, ACE member, Suzanne Ryan, has several time stated that we should use California as a model.
But, when called on it, they all avoid saying it like it is. Guess they have figured out that scripted programs are a hard sell with the public or teachers. If you don't believe in scripted programs, than why don't you reassure us all by telling us that Open Court, Reading Mastery or one of the other ACE recommend programs would be a bad choice for our schools. That would make me feel better, but I'm not holding my breath.
Predictably, you will just repeat the ridicules statement that we will use these programs as general guides for teachers and supplement them. Why does it makes sense to buy a program with a ten volume scripted teacher manual and then tell teachers to change it as they want? Especially when these program are not meant to be used that way. Talk about expensive overkill. And then on top of the big expense of this 150 minute a day program, you tell me it will be SUPPLEMENTED! Supplemented? When are they going to supplement? Why don't they just increase the amount of LA in our current program to 150 minutes? That would probably be just as effective and cheaper. Whose going to pay for the materials needed for the supplements when we get through paying for all those workbooks and textbooks? Did you read the materials list I posted?
P. T. Barnum sure missed his chance with published reading curriculums.
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 5:08 am:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, my kid enjoys the word sorts. He got so interested in the developmental stages that we read through sections of the Word Journeys book together. Now, he's read more of it than you have and understands it better than you do! |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
An added thought: The few times I have posted on MOL some piece of information about myself just to indicate I have experience with what's being discussed, the people who can never disagree about anything without making it personal have used whatever I've said against me, even months later -- meaning, in the future, should I support somebody for TC, for instance, somebody will sneer that "since you think you're so such a for having taught philosophy at Columbia" blah blah. I've read enough of such babytalk. I used to read such things about John Davenport until he began posting against Horoshack. So don't expect me to answer more questions about the rest of my experience with children and elementary school education, or universal education.
And this is also a good place to insert that I've read some amazing things about myself on MOL that are plainly half-made up, half-fact gossip that is malicious if funny to those who actually do know me. If some MOL poster tells you they know me or is trying to throw dirt on me, be even warier of their info than somebody who tells you science has validated the reading program they like. With the exceptions of Suzanne, steel and jem, there isn't a single person posting on MOL who has ever so much as spoken to me on the telephone, let alone been in my home or part of my life in Maplewood.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
So now that the fascination with me has ended, does anybody want to discuss whether ACE is claiming too much by claiming it knows of a reading program that is backed my as much scientific research and evidence as the medicine we take, and will be sure to work in the M/SO schools?
It's your money, maybe your kids' educations, and your property values riding on the outcome.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
bookgal,
Sorry to all for making multiple posts, but it occurred to me this morning that I didn't answer the one part of bookgal's question she was most interested in.
I know probably close to 30 families with school-aged kids in Maplewood/South Orange, and at least a dozen more who either have kids who did their schooling here or who themselves went to school here, some for multiple generations (none post on MOL) stretching back to the 1920s. Parents like to talk about their kids, and I like listening, and I know all these people well enough to have spent hundreds of hours talking to them about SO/MA schools compared with other local options. Their experiences of the schools range from very satisfied to unhappy, although the reasons for the unhappinesses are quite varied and change from year to year, or school to school.
Some of these families send their children to private schools (none for reasons of religion) and, interestingly, some families have some of their children in private, other in public schools. In every single family I know with children old enough to attend college, all have gone on to college, almost all of them prestigious colleges.
I know the experiences of both black families and white families in the district, as well as one immigrant family. Of the half dozen or so people I know who attended SO/MA schools in previous decades, all are white.
I also know people who teach in the district schools and in neighboring districts, and perhaps less than a dozen families with kids in nearby districts. I have to say that of all the families I know here, only one has ever articulated criticisms of the schools that resemble the criticisms that dominate MOL.
My "bias" in approaching the BOE elections is wanting to be clear about what is known and what isn't. I've not seen any study of the local schools that says why some children here don't attain the very high degree of success most do. We've got a set of symptoms but no consensus on causes. I think coming to a finer understanding of that should be the priority. I could be wrong, but I doubt it is mainly the curricula.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 490
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
What is the name of the curriculum or approach being taught right now, in the elementary schools? Appreciate any clarification. I'm not at all happy with it in terms of choice of reading and activies. I am not up on scripted v whatever. My daughter's experience, though, is summed up by this guy's comment:
"By contrast, in case you don't realize this, many advanced readers in our elementary schools are bored by some of the strange and weird exercises that our current curriculum contains. I have tried to avoid personalizing this, but I know that my older daughter doesn't get a heck of a lot out of the bizarre word sort activity she has to do for homework every Wednesday. But this is not our teacher's fault -- she is excellent, but the materials she has to work with are certainly not!"
|
Who?
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 721
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 12:39 pm: | |
There is no name.
It was written by a local teacher, defended to our children's learning death, photocopied here, and is supplemented by photocopies of ed journal articles, and cut and paste materials.
The English department refuses to change its spots.
DWM
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 1:43 pm: | |
Well, it's already happened: Over on another board, Jcrohn is using my passing reference to having given lectures at Columbia in philosophy as way to try to win a wholly different argument, sneering at university lecturers as the equivalent of itinerant farm laborers -- even though she knows nothing of the circumstances in which I was invited to lecture in my 30s, and invited to return twice.
So I don't blame you, bookgal, for thinking twice before posting, and you can see why I don't care to feed the malicious anymore.
I'll also add that I recently went back and read some very long threads trying to get a better understanding of some the issues before election time. I was reading a series of long-ago exchanges between Jcrohn and nan, and while the exchanges were substantively sharp, with lots of making fun of each other's ideas, there were no personal attacks. At one point nan scored an irrefutable point, and Jcrohn's response was a totally nasty personal attack. You could tell from nan's reply back she was thought jcrohn must have misinterpreted something she wrote. She tried restating her point to clear up any misunderstanding. But the personal attacks just continued, with no acknowledgement of the real point nan was making. Nan finally took a wallop back, and I saw why.
My views of the LA controversy differ from not only nan's and jcrohn's views, but from almost all the views I've read on MOL. I think people would be wise to disconnect not only group think but the McCarthy-ite attempt to imply there is group think when there is none there, and take a fresh look at the schools, the issues and the BOE candidates.
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
Cynicalgirl,
John Davenport refers to an activity within the curriculum, not the entire curriculum. The big debate with John is over the type and amount of phonics that our kids receive. He wants the k-3 curriculum revamped with scripted phonics programs employing intensive synthetic phonics. Currently, our district includes instruction from a book called Word Journeys, that combines "Assesment-Guided Phonics, Spelling and Vocabulary Instruction."
Word Journeys is interactive and inquiry-based word study, often through word sorting activities (there are other activities, too). The kids read through lists of words and arrange them based on sound and letter patterns. The kids are assessed and placed in one of five stages and receive words based on the assessment:
Stage I: Emergent (approx. pre-1)
Stage II: Letter Name (approx. Gr. 1)
Stage III: Within Word Pattern (approx. Gr. 2)
Stage IV: Syllable Juncture (approx. Gr. 3)
Stage V: Derivational Constancy Spelling (approx. Gr 4-adult)
The grade assignments I've placed are EXTREMELY general and indicate where the stage sometimes starts, not where it should also end.
The great thing about this program is that it is ideal for differentiated instruction. I also think it helps the kids with self-awareness and personal motivation. For example, my kid, not a steller speller (takes after me), was not putting much energy into keeping up and bombed a few WW spelling tests and got demoted to LN stage. The LN stage words are all regular and easy, like flop, stop, top. After about two weeks of that my kid actually complained to me that it was too easy and he wanted more challenging words. I was in jaw dropping shock that my kid, the "Mickey" of school enthusiasm, actually ASKED for more challenging material. I wrote a note to the teacher, pronto, and he got back in the WW stage where he is now doing better with an improved attitude.
When used well, I think the program is fantastic. Most of the complaints I've heard are from parents whose kids gets words from the wrong stage (especially good readers stuck with the easy words). I heard a lot of that last year when the program was new. I think the teaches are getting more skillful at using it now and the assesments and instruction seem more effective this year--at least for teachers that like the program.
Of course, it is nothing like a scripted phonics program, so if that is your idea of the perfect program, you are going to hate Word Journeys.
You can get the book from Amazon. The link also has some sample pages to view:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1572305592/102-7510230-0530554?v=g lance&s=books
Here's the publisher's description
Book Description
This book presents a highly practical approach to assessing children's spelling and word knowledge abilities and offering effective, appropriate instruction. Included is the Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA), a dictated word inventory that enables teachers to quickly and easily evaluate students' stages of spelling development and their knowledge of important orthographic features. Detailed guidelines are set forth for engaging students in hands-on word study that is tailored to their specific strengths and weaknesses. Validated and field-tested, the instructional techniques described here reflect the author's many years of classroom experience. Particularly useful features of the book include narrative "snapshots" of children at different stages of spelling development; numerous examples of student work; suggested word sort activities for each orthographic feature; lists of recommended books and poems; and a focus on fostering a love of words through word play and language appreciation. Provided in the appendices are reproducible forms for adminstering the DSA, plus a list of over 12,000 words aranged by sound, pattern, and meaning-related features.
|
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
Cynicalgirl,
I have found it helpful to read the International Reading Association's position paper on phonics (very short)
http://www.reading.org/positions/phonics.html
and their position paper on phonemic awareness
http://www.reading.org/positions/phonemic.html
(only half a page longer).
John Davenport, you might find them interesting too.
|
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
"Well, it's already happened: Over on another board [sic], Jcrohn is using my passing reference [sic] to having given lectures at Columbia in philosophy as way to try to win a wholly different argument, sneering at university lecturers as the equivalent of itinerant farm laborers -- even though she knows nothing of the circumstances in which I was invited to lecture in my 30s, and invited to return twice."
Actually, I was poking fun at your pretensions to erudition again. I don't really care who or what got you your Columbia lectureship.
The fact is, you don't--nor does Nancy Elkins--teach reading in our school district. Suzanne Ryan does. Her expertise as a teacher is well known. And her opinion on this subject in which she is professonally competent matters more than yours.
(I have a party to go to, so whatever new seethings you come up with here will have to resume being left to hang pointlessly in cyberspace.) |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
Nobody is seething except you Jcrohn. Nor were you poking fun. You were being malicious.
To others:
Suzanne is indeed a justly respected third grade teacher. There are other well-respected, successful teachers in our schools who do not share Suzanne's views on this issue. She has repeatedly said the views she expresses are only her own point of view. I am glad she posts her views.
But Suzanne has made several claims in her post that are contradicted by the researchers and authorities in the field like the International Reading Association, to name just one source. The extensive research on this issue does not support Suzanne's beliefs as far as I can see, and I've looked for support of them. And the issue is not personalities or friends or differences among teachers. The issue affects the entire district and all the students, not just those in one classroom.
Suzaane has said things like: "It all comes down to a very simple formula -- teach children early--use sound methods that are known and proven to work. Methods that can withstand the test of efficacy. Methods that research proves are best for children."
If you are taxpayer in this town or have children in ths schools it is worth your while to see whether this "formula" dictates one kind of reading instruction or discqualifies the one being used by looking at the International Reading Association website.
Suzanne wrote:
"The Surgeon General said that we could decrease the number of breast cancer related deaths. Did society listen? Yes, they did. Now we have routine mamograms. Similarly,the Department of Education, along with many major reading researchers across this country, can now say that we KNOW what the best ways are to each kids to read."
Even if the current Department of Education is making such a claim, it is not supported by independent national research. Again, look for yourself.
Suzanne wrote:
"Imagine years ago in the fifties, discovering the polio vaccine, and knowing that the polio vaccine worked, and then not giving it to children! We'd still have polio. However,that is what we are doing when we ignore the reading research.We are allowing our children to not fulfill their potential."
I also believe we should not ignore reading research. But there is no such parallel to reading instruction in terms of having a cure or vaccine for reading in hand anywhere, according to the research.
I agree with all of Suzanne's aspirations for every child in the SO/MA school district. This isn't an attack on Suzanne as a teacher. But her position as a teacher in the schools doesn't put her statements beyond question, or rejection if they are wrong. Nobody's statements are beyond question, no matter how impressive their credentials.
Suzanne has urged all community members to get involved and pull together for all the children. I also urge people to be involved and think the direction in which we pull matters tremendously. I think that direction should be determined by a dispassionate review of the available research.
The International Reading Association has a very accessible overview of what is known about reading instruction based on national studies.
http://www.reading.org/
It is a very credible, serious association of education professionals.
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 491
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Thank you, nan. I'm probably late to inquiring, given she's in 5th grade and time in the year. The sorting business seems to me rather like the prefix/suffix stuff I remember from grade school. My kid is in the V/D group -- I think a lot of her objection and my irritation lies with how the thing is done (all 30 words defined on Monday night, which takes quite awhile). And she's not seeing the plus of having an extra 10 for being in D! The Netting New Words thing they do is good.
I think what I find puzzling in all this is that while I appreciate spelling, and learning suffixes etc. on words you already know, the new words activity seems disjointed from the reading they do.
I have almost no opinion on scripted v whatever. On most things in life, I tend to prefer varied and practical, and a mixture of approaches as befits the grade/kid/level. So, I guess you could say I think strugglers often need a lot more structure, and thrivers can deal with looser, maybe more like whole language (not that I've anything like a handle on what that is).
I feel a sigh of relief actually that my kid reads, spells etc. well and more or less has effortlessly from the get-go. I think it may be that different approaches should be available for different kids. My biggest worry right now is that, at her grade and beyond, they're not reading much writing that's very creative or ambitious or classic. I know that good writing is more a function of what you read, and how much you read, than painful 5 paragraph exercises. Given what she brings home to read (too often) I just don't see that there's many good models being taught. Finally, she got Mathilda and James and the Giant Peach, closer to the mark; however, she read those awhile ago and I think some of the kids are ready for something more challenging. I wish the books varied by in-class group (ability, more or less) so some better material could be offered. |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
What's interesting is that there is so much contempt for a local curriculum while simultanously there is a claim from the same quarter a local teacher's opinion counts more than linked references to the national research.
It's also worth noting Suzanne herself is advocating looking at the national research. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2500
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
What's also interesting is that people seem to spend more energy trying to show who is wrong than on the points they wish to convey. My head is spinning with who is on which side and favors or disfavors which types of curricula or teaching methods or whether leveling is good or bad.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1224
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 4:59 pm: | |
Welcome to the Ed threads, Tom!
Check out the archives for some background information. You will see that it's just like the Soapbox, but you have to learn some new vocabulary words and some new definitions of terms you already thought you knew. That's how we keep out the rif raf (sp?).
I'm sure you will be up to speed in no time! |
harpo
Citizen
Username: Harpo
Post Number: 1428
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Why don't you skip trying to figure out who is on what side on MOL? It only matters how the candidates stand and you can ask them.
The point I wish to convey is that science has yet to discover the reading method that works for all students, and that the available professional research done about reading instruction does NOT indicate that replacing the current curriculum would guarantee better results. I am not against a change in curriculum. But no one has yet made a persuasive case that they know which curriculum would be better than what is now in our schools.
I'm still asking questions about curricula and leveling, but I have found these links extremely helpful:
The Minority Student Achievement Network
http://www.msanetwork.org/aboutus.asp
and the International Reading Association
http://www.reading.org/
And a new book called The American Dream and The Public Schools is a concise, neutral overview of the issues and politics, including New Jersey school reform.
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:27 pm: | |
Cynicalgirl,
Here's a short excerpt from the book on Stage V.
Stage V: Derivational Constancy Spelling
This is the last stage of spelling development and one that continues through adulthood. Most of the words students encounter in their reading and many they use in their writing are of relatively low frequency and primarily of Greek and Latin origin. Although some students reach the derivational constancy stage by fourth grade, the majority are likely to be in seventh or eighth grade before they attain it (Ganske, 1999). . . .
. . .Unlike words studied at earlier stages, many of the words at this stage are related and derive from the same root. Roots, like prefixes and suffixes, carry meaning. Because they cannot be made any smaller without loosing the meaning, they are known as morphemes. Some roots (often called root words) are intact words, as in rereading. However, most of the Greek and Latin roots that form the backdrop for word study at this stage are not--transfer, audible, dictate). Learning to preserve the meaning units of derivationally related words is the key issue confronting spellers at this stage. For example, in each of the following pairs of words, notice the consistency of the spelling-meaning connection, despite the pronunciation changes that are evident in the underlined letters: condemn/condemnation, discuss/discussion, music/musician, compose/composition. An awareness of this relationship can greatly facilitate spelling knowledge and enhance vocabulary acquisition.
------------------
It goes on to give each feature of the stage in detail. The author does not suggest that the kids look up and write the meaning of every word chosen for study. That must come from a different part of the curriculum. She does recommend the following books as being rich in vocabulary typical of this stage: Redwall, The Witch of Blackbird Pond, and Eleanor Roosevelt: A Life of Discovery. You might get those for your child to read. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2501
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Maybe science cannot be tasked with recommending a curriculum. Perhaps good teaching comes down to qualities that cannot be quantified.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 492
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 9:13 am: | |
Thank you, nan. All of this makes sense to me. I studied Latin, French a smear of linguistics, etc. and can appreciate this approach. What I described as part of the class assignments isn't unique to my kid's teacher -- they all seem to do it at the 5th grade level. Now, it could be that I'm not hearing the whole story from my kid, but I think part of what's bugging me is that exactly the sort of thing you describe as the rationale doesn't appear to get taught/offered/presented.
Way back when I was in school, I do remember my teachers talking about the origins of these kinds of words, and how knowing some latin (in particular) helps you recognize meanings/definition of new words. The whole fun of words, and the detective work around definition doesn't seem to be there.
I was a weirdo kid who liked this stuff. I regularly read my parents' Readers' Digests, esp the Increasing Your Word Power feature. How these skills are taught is nowhere near as fun as that! |
wendy
Citizen
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 466
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Nan
Please private line me (or call me - ask around and people will tell you my phone number) about some good, cheap coffee resources.
Now to the topic at hand
In your March 20 1:52 pm post you wrote:
"Currently, our district includes instruction from a book called Word Journeys, that combines "Assesment-Guided Phonics, Spelling and Vocabulary Instruction."
I'm not sure who or what you are quoting from but then you went on to quote the review from Amazon of Word Journey's:
"This book presents a highly practical approach to assessing children's spelling and word knowledge abilities and offering effective, appropriate instruction. Included is the Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA), a dictated word inventory that enables teachers to quickly and easily evaluate students' stages of spelling development and their knowledge of important orthographic features." (not quoted entirely)
Nan, I think Word Journeys is a great first step but it really appears to be a spelling program first and foremost. True, most good spellers have learned phonics but I think this is the only systematic phonics instruction our kids are receiving. I will gladly be willing to stand corrected but I need real facts. The question asked of many is: Is Word Journeys enough? I think the answer is too idiosyncratic across our district and there lies much of the debate. I can't explain the vitriol but at least I think I've found something that we should discuss further.
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Wendy,
(I only had ONE cup today so I hope I can do this :-))
I own the Word Journeys book and I've read it. I was describing it from my own summary of the book combined with the publisher's information.
To understand Word Journeys, you have to understand how closely connected phonics and spelling are. Phonics is the relationship of sounds to letters, which gets complicated, since so many letters have multiple sounds (an 1929 study found 18 for the letter 'a' alone). The spelling system of a language is known as Orthography. In the orthography of English, we have a 26 letter alphabet. Another feature is our use of double consonants to represent vowel differences (robed vs robbed). As you can see by these examples, the elements of both phonics and spelling are basically the same. So, it makes sense to teach them together.
As far as adequate amount of phonics, you have to remember that phonics should only be a part of a good LA program. We should be equally concerned with the other parts of the program, including how much actual reading and writing the kids do to apply to those skills. The NRP report found a strong effect size for the use of systematic, explicit phonics, but a later reanalysis of the NRP report, found a much smaller effect size (1/2 of the original). and that " the combined effect of a number of literacy activities appears to be larger than the effect of systematic phonics instruction alone." A good, short article describing the details of this reanalysis can be found by clicking on the link below and then selecting, "Research on Reading: A Cautionary Tale" by Gregory Camilli and Paula Wolfe
http://www.ascd.org/cms/objectlib/ascdframeset/index.cfm?publication=http://www. ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200403/toc.html
The authors, Camilli and Wolf, point out that it is how instruction is differentiated that makes the difference.
The important recommendation here is that systematic phonics instruction may be valuable for selected students when added to a comprehensive literacy program, but it imparts little value when used as the only reading instruction for all students. The efficacy of phonics instruction depends on how teachers use their class time. If a teacher delivers 10 minutes of systematic phonics instruction each day to those students who need it, such instruction may have a high benefit-cost ratio. If phonics activities displace literature-rich and meaning-oriented instruction, however, the benefit of systematic phonics instruction will be greatly diminished.
As Word Journeys is based on a differentiated model of instruction, I think it is an ideal choice for our district and it's economical too! So, before people start wanting to throw it out, I wish they would at least try to understand what it is trying to do. It is not the easiest book in the world to read and I'm not sure how adequate the training is on it, and I agree it is not used consistently across the board. But I think those are fixable problems--something the LA review committee could focus on if they were not focused on trashing the whole program and bringing in Open Court.
I also understand that in first grade, at least, it is not the only material used. They also use the Cunningham Make-A-Word materials and I think they have added more Cunningham materials to the earlier grades--which would give more word building instructions and work well with the Word Journeys.
I do think it is a shame that parents have to wonder if there kids are getting enough phonics or spelling or whatever. I've had these concerns myself at times. That's one of the reasons I am so attracted to the Cunningham 4-Blocks method which divides the LA session into four 25 minute sessions: 1 for guided reading, 1 for word study, 1 for self-selected reading, and 1 for writing. I think that would give a good structure to the program and inform parents exactly what is going on daily so they would not have to try to pry it out of their kid. I'm all for adding structure if it makes sense and does not suck the joy out of the classroom. |
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 6:36 pm: | |
Cynicalgirl,
I agree. And my husband, the fifth grade teacher, nodded his head and agreed with your points since he teaches the origins of the words to help explain them. It just makes it more interesting.
I am a terrible speller, and learning spelling never made any sense to me at all since I would just forget everything I'd memorized after the test (and often before). But, that's what I like about this book--it puts spelling into a context that makes it me realize that it's a worthwhile subject after all. |
Cynicalgirl
Citizen
Username: Cynicalgirl
Post Number: 495
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
I know this is heresy, but I think its tough to imagine most teachers doing the differentiated thing within their classroom in a way adequate to the needs of each kid -- using Word Journeys or anything else, at least in the upper elementary zone. I have a feeling my kid's teacher is trying to juggle too many sets of needs, using whatever she's obliged to use. I think she ends up without enough time to do the cool/interesting part of Word Journeys. I get the feeling that what amounts to the standard deviation off the mean is just too large in the average classroom around here these days. Wide dispersion of needs/abilities. |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 11:26 pm: | |
Time to put this thread back up to the top! Cynicalgirl, your last point, a couple weeks back, was that much of this celebrated material in Word Journeys is not being taught. Nan cited this passage: "An awareness of this relationship [spelling-meaning connection] can greatly facilitate spelling knowledge and enhance vocabulary acquisition." No doubt this is true, but this relationship must actually be taught. The whole language 'spirit' behind the implementation of the 'letter' of our program (Word Journeys) means that students are asked to guess at, or figure out this relationship for themselves. The idea is that direct instruction is old-fashioned, whereas promoting 'higher-order thinking' is cool. None of which helps a child who cannot yet read, and must get into Project Ahead to get direct help learning to decode. Does this clarify the problem we are having?
[I stopped posting on this thread a while back, by the way, because Nan's last response was so hysterical, and I did not want to reply in kind. But now I've come to believe that that was a mistake...]
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Does this mean, John, that you have ACTUALLY read the Word Journeys book before talking like an expert on it? It does not sound that way to me, but I'm just checking. |
J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 10:27 am: | |
"The whole language 'spirit' behind the implementation of the 'letter' of our program (Word Journeys) means that students are asked to guess at, or figure out this relationship for themselves. The idea is that direct instruction is old-fashioned, whereas promoting 'higher-order thinking' is cool. None of which helps a child who cannot yet read, and must get into Project Ahead to get direct help learning to decode. Does this clarify the problem we are having?"
IMO, this is a near-perfect summary, marred only by the fact that it may understate our district's aversion to direct instruction, whch in some quarters isn't just considered old fashioned, but harmful.
Of course anything taken to excess can be harmful. But our district has swung too far to the pedagogical left and refuses to be centered. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 11002
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Julia Burch on the district's role in working through the tax and financial issues we face...
(From her current literature)
quote:Our already steep tax burden and the demand for
school improvement create destructive tensions
within the community and the Board of
Education. Both the Board and the district must
do more to manage the ongoing funding crisis to
avoid damage to the community and our schools.
|
lumpynose
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 850
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 3:23 pm: | |
It seems that Brian O'Leary and Greg Betheil are endorsing candidates. Who are Latz and Jasey endorsing if anyone? |
notwharfrat
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 789
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
It's a secret.
DWM |
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 9:47 pm: | |
What is all this about secret endorsements? I have not yet grasped this? For, how can a secret endorsement do any good, if it is secret?
Fair question, Nan. The answer is no, I have only looked at portions of Word Journeys in photocopy form, and I'm no expert on it. But I do not need to be an expert on its content to make the point that the connections you were quoting from the text are not taught with sufficient directness to our students. You might even agree with this point, actually.
Part of the problem with Word Journeys -- or rather with our use of it in this district -- is that it only goes to teachers. We do not have a student workbook version (or multiple workbooks for the different stages) for each kid in our elementary schools. I'm not sure why not, but my impression is that one does not exist. Your opinion seems to be that buying such a workbook for each student would overstrain our district budget. Yet we do have these workbooks for Everyday Math. Whatever program we end up with after the dust settles, I would hope that each student has a tangible workbook as part of their materials -- in part just so teachers do not have to spend so much of their own money on photocopying exercises from the binders that are now our curriculum, or other exercises they find on their own to supplement what they have, etc. Peace.
|
nan
Citizen
Username: Nan
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 8:55 pm: | |
One workbook?
John,
Open Court, your preferred program, has at least three workbooks (at about $11.00 @). That's a nice chunk of change.
Such presumptions evoke a derisively constructed comparison. What do you mean by "sufficient directness?" Where's the gauge for that? Today my kid came home with words in the Within Word level for the long A sound using ai and ie --which was typed clearly across the top of the sheet. Is that sufficiently direct enough for you? Evidently not.
And, it just so happens that Word Journeys does provide reproducible materials for teachers and students to use and huge lists of words and forms for assessment. However, because it is designed for differentiated instruction, materials are customized using templates and selecting from extensive word lists. No one is left to reinvent the wheel. It does require teachers to be knowledgeable professionals and to be able to make educational decisions, which is why it does not sit right with the direct instruction folks. But there is no evidence that programs do a better job of teaching than teachers--actually there is research to show just the opposite.
I am still amazed that someone would, as you have, publish a critical editorial on a program without even opening the book. Please, get a copy of Word Journeys and read it with as much open mindedness as you can muster. Otherwise, I suggest you stick to talking about budgetary matters, where you actually have something to say.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page