| Author | Message | ||
     jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1274 Registered: 6-2001 |
A couple other things to think about: Calling for increased state funding is not the same as calling for raising per student spending. It's calling for taking some of the burden of school funding off of property taxes. "State funding" has to come from state revenues--which means income taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes (which have shrunk majorly as a share of the revenue pool) and miscellaneous taxes. Maybe that means raising some of those taxes, maybe that means spending current revenues differently--cynicalgirl asked in another thread about where NJ does spend its money. I'm not sure, but our income tax rates are pretty typical compared to other states, and we're one of the wealthiest states, so that revenue source is reasonable--except that a significant percentage of NJ residents pay taxes in another state. Secondly, when you compare the better districts in NJ with similar districts in suburban NY, CT, or LI--places that share our cost of living--the NJ districts typically spend thousands of dollars less per student, with excellent results. That certainly suggests that dramatic increases in per student spending are not necessarily called for. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 357 Registered: 9-2003  |
Dropping in for a moment. Yep, if I knew of an objective source for comparing the tax "pie" for NJ against other comparable states, and the nature and size of the slices, that would begin to help me understand. There really is so little I know about state budget etc.here, and it is so daunting to understand. I was ignorant and comfortable in my district, which had its issues. But I really contruly am blown away by the apparent upper middle classness of the town and then, say, go in some of the bathrooms of Clinton, and in the Summer SOM, and find such disrepair. And this is tiny compared to the other operating budget issues. It's little stuff. Recent past issues with getting buses for field trips (I'm told use to be a bunch of car pooling). Computer situation kind of a mess. All I can think is that the state funding part of the equation is fubar given the rate of property taxes. It does appear that NJ has tons more bureaucracy, I'm guessing duplicative, among/across town, county, state etc. To an outsider, it looks expensive, inefficient and serving no end other than a self-serving one. Maybe that's where the money goes.... | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 856 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Being critical of NCLB is not the same as "Arguing for the status quo and keeping everyone in the dark ..."" Similarly, criticizing the effectiveness of our district's attempts to narrow the achievement gap through expensive pull-out remediation and calling for a published reading program emphasizing early phonics are not the same things as arguing that state and federal mandates should be unfunded or that desks should be bolted to the floor. Yet any time proponents of accountability and high standards for all speak up, they are accused of supporting the least palatable aspects of NCLB and every unsuccessful example of education reform that can plausibly be laid at the feet of George Bush. Plus we must endure lengthy tirades about the evils of anti-humanistic, corporate-sponsored, culturally biased, (etc., etc.) standardized testing. "Calling for increased state funding is not the same as calling for raising per student spending. It's calling for taking some of the burden of school funding off of property taxes." Only congenital Republicans and hardshell Libertarians do not agree. ""State funding" has to come from state revenues--which means income taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes (which have shrunk majorly as a share of the revenue pool) and miscellaneous taxes." Well, I don't know what a "miscellaneous" tax is--a tax on trucking you'd like to see applied to school funding instead of roads and mass transit?--but sales taxes are regressive and corporate taxes (particularly in a region such as this) are anticompetitive. That pretty much leaves graduated income taxes as the sole fair alternative tax source of school funding. Unfortunately, at least according to those who understand the ins and outs of state politics better than I, we have an intractable political situation in Trenton that will ensure that, short of a tax revolt, there is no change in the state's income tax structure for the foreseeable future--or at least, not one which would shift the sourcing for school budgets enough to matter. Both Steve Latz and Brian O’Leary have worked to change this; neither of them will succeed this year. So that means we must look to other possibilities, including making changes in the way we spend the $75 million/yr we have. "maybe that means spending current revenues differently--cynicalgirl asked in another thread about where NJ does spend its money. I'm not sure..." Who is? But I've been told again and again by people who have lived in this state all their lives that a significant part of tax and lottery monies intended for the schools in NJ is wasted by the Democratic machine on blatant nepotism and cronyism. (Not that Republicans would necessarily pay out any less to their own chums.) In another thread, you’ve opined that “realism” must be brought to the discussion of the schools budget. So what’s realistic? That we in SOMA will succeed in changing state spending patterns any time soon, or that SOMA will rethink the way our district budget is spent? | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1124 Registered: 2-2001 |
Implementing a scripted reading program in our schools would probably cost about a million dollars. It would drive out some of the best teachers and it would NOT guarantee we could dispense with remediation. In fact, there is evidence that the lack of sufficient comprehension instruction would result in even more remediation, especially in later elementary and middle school. Such programs are mandated by the Reading First program, which is one of the worst components of NCLB. This program distorts the findings of the National Reading Panel (which DOES NOT support scripted instruction) and makes the false claim that scripted programs are proven based on scientific evidence. Furthermore it is a huge federal intrusion on local control --as we recently saw in New York City where they were forced to change the program they had chosen (and spent a LOT of money on) despite producing evidence that the program they wanted was just as effective or better than the one they were forced to use That's about as "unpalatable" as you can get IMHO. And here's the results from a new three year study from the University of Wisconsin that the DOE/NIH folks will not like one little bit: Study: Direct Instruction Not Best Way to Teach Reading http://www.uwm.edu/News/PR/04.01/Reading.html | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 857 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Implementing a scripted reading program in our schools would probably cost about a million dollars." Why would it? Please support this assertion with facts. "It would drive out some of the best teachers" Which teachers in our district, best or otherwise, have said or suggested they would leave if a published curriculum were implemented? (We probably lost more of "the best teachers" during last year's budget cuts than we'd lose as a result of curriculum change of any kind.) "...and it would NOT guarantee we could dispense with remediation." Nothing on earth can guarantee that we could dispense with remediation, and no one has ever suggested this. What I and others have repeatedly argued is that we may be able to reduce remediation's overall necessity by implementing a systematic early LA program with scope and sequence, which our district currently lacks (your risible claims about Word Journeys to the contrary). "In fact, there is evidence that the lack of sufficient comprehension instruction would result in even more remediation, especially in later elementary and middle school." Nonsense. My son's Houghton-Mifflin language arts curriculum, in use at Solomon Schechter school, hardly lacks for comprehension instruction. (BTW, here are some of the second grade spelling words he has been assigned lately from the awful, awful scripted curriculum his school uses: "schedule," "register," "whole," "discriminate," "believe," "community." These are words drawn from the terrible, boring texts with which Houghton Mifflin enslaves small children to corporate America. What is your kid studying?) Strangely, my son's teacher has failed to become a senseless robot as a result of having readers to work from; kids use both these and the children's lit you prefer. This week's book report, for instance, was on a Junie B. Jones title my son chose from a list of options that included Cam Jansen, Nate the Great, and I can't recall what other 2nd grade fodder. But how can my kid be doing Junie B. book reports, Nan, given the all-encompassing nature of the terrible, scripted curriculum he must endure? How do they manage to allow for Junie B. Jones at Solomon Shechter, what with secular studies confined to only half a day, Judaic studies the other half, and the scripted curriculum taking up all available class time with "drill and kill"? Is my kid missing out on social studies, math, science, art, music, gym, computer class, recess? No, not in the least. And he's learning a bloody difficult language to boot, as well as getting religious instruction. Because Schecter participates in the Read Across America program, I've recently become aware that my kid reads on his own for at least two hours a week. So now I've got the little corporate slave reading bedtime stories to his sister. It's awesome to delegate. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1126 Registered: 2-2001 |
Obviously your kid's program is not scripted since the teacher has the freedom to teach as she wants--and wisely she supplements the reading program heavily and adds lots of independent reading. In your kid's school, the reading series is just part of the vast array of available material to be used with kids who are mostly above grade level with very involved parents. This is not what I'm hearing advocated for our schools by you and other members of your group ACE, where, despite your sudden amnesia, we have been repeatedly told that implementing scripted programs would eliminate Project Ahead, assure consistency from classroom to classroom, and also eliminate the need for a language arts supervisor. Here's one example where an ACE member (later cut and cut and pasted again by another ACE member) reponded to the question on how we would implement Open Court. They used Madison schools as an example of what could be done: K-2 Open Court is used exclusively in kindergarten (also half-day like SO-M) through second grade to ensure that students receive a solid foundation in decoding and other reading skills. http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3130&post=149380#POST1493 80 Have you changed your position now and decided that we can just hand the teachers a book to do with it as they like? | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 364 Registered: 9-2003 |
A question and a thought: Has there always (in education, in NJ) been major issues with curriculum? When I went to elementary school, we always had a standard text book, and there were often worksheets or what have you that seemed to go with it, but the idea of a compelling curriculum thing was invisible to me. Seemed like we worked our way through the book, read other books along the way and did projects and what not. From time to time we took standardized tests. So, I'm kinda wondering was that Curriulum and were people arguing about it? This was in the 60's. I get the feeling the parent/teacher/admin relationship changed somewhere in the 70's. It feels like Education got to be sort of a big business. It uses language that to me obfuscates (!) and possibly alienates some parents. When I was a kid, my teachers had more education than my parents, and so my parents would tend to listen/respect them. Nowadays, many of us have as much education as the teachers do. At the same time, I think that many colleges of ed got rather sappy and fluffy in the 70's and 80's so knee-jerk respect for their graduates, Ph Ds and research declined. I'm guessing that college-educated parents are more inclined to question their authority. None of this means that I don't respect particular teachers or the role, but it does alter my attitude going into the fray. More and more research thrown about, and lingo, and some days I'm inclined to view it all as blather and semi-junk science. Is there no way out of this? We argue about the results of this or that study, and then the methods of that study, and then the politics. I begin to think it's a hopeless debate if conducted as it has been. Whole language, phonics, this or that curriculum, this or that educational study. I feel like we're all fighting about issues that are peripheral and self-serving. I begin to favor national standardized tests just to do the apples to apples assessment. District tests, school tests, national tests. Where is the end to this? What does it all prove? I would rather drop all expensive tests other than a national test and spend the money on more teachers and materials... Pardon my excess, please. It's probably even stupid to post this. I do know that when I get the various test results I make some effort to keep straight the origin and purpose of the test, check that my kid was in the middle or better, and then throw them in a drawer. Same with report cards. I do read her homework assignments, and her work and form my own sense of how she's doing compared to what I think should be the case. I'll start "worrying" come the SAT, because that will have an effect on college. But the rest of this? I can't make any consistent sense out of it. If she got all mediocre grades but was reading well and writing well and doing math competently, I'm not sure how much concern I'd have. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 858 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Obviously your kid's program is not scripted since the teacher has the freedom to teach as she wants..." Really? Well Houghton Mifflin certainly is a program you've broad-brushed as "scripted." In fact, it's one of six or seven programs ACE has always recommended, and which you have collectively damned to hell up, down and sideways. What if a curriculum is "scripted," nan? Is it not obvious to you that thoughtful educators, if they are held accountable for objectively measured successes and failures, can decide for themselves how much to deviate from a script with any given group of students? "--and wisely she supplements the reading program heavily and adds lots of independent reading. In your kid's school, the reading series is just part of the vast array of available material..." No kidding. But this is the very same thing I and others have been advocating for our public schools, for bloody ever. Don't you recall our repeated arguments over this very point, where you insisted that if we were to use a published curriculum like the ones ACE recommends, so much time would be taken up by boring, scripted "drill and kill" that supplementation with regular children's literature or extra vocabulary instruction would be imposssible without cutting into other areas of instruction? I'm telling you: that has not happened at my kid's school, despite the available time for instruction in secular subjects being only HALF of what teachers in our public schools have to deal with. It needn't happen in SOMA either. "This is not what I'm hearing advocated for our schools by you and other members of your group ACE, where, despite your sudden amnesia, we have been repeatedly told that implementing scripted programs would eliminate Project Ahead..." The amnesia is yours. You "hear" what fits the anti-curriculum rhetoric you pull out of one or another of your bottomless resources in order to claim advocates of a published curriculum have said something extreme. But we haven't. Never--not once--have I, nor anyone from ACE, nor any other advocate of a published curriculum, claimed that "implementing scripted programs would eliminate Project Ahead". I challenge you to find even one example of my having said this. For that matter, find an example of other ACE members having said it, or John Davenport having said it, or even Fringe having said it. What we say, nan, is that solid curricular K-3 resources--with basal readers and systematic instruction--may help reduce dependence on Project Ahead, since up to a third of our students currently require it in the early grades. Reducing the number of kids in remediation in grades 1-3 would either lower its cost outright, or else provide for more individualized instruction, since the ratio of students to PA teachers would go down. (Though, just to make things clearer still, I'm not sure PA itself is the best way of supplying remedial instruction; the folks at Abington I spoke to had nothing but derision for pull-out remediation, and believe there are better ways.) "...assure consistency from classroom to classroom, and also eliminate the need for a language arts supervisor." Oh, horrors--consistency from classroom to classroom! A minimum standard for phonetics content! Like at my kid's private school, where they use an ACE-recommended reading curriculum. And where the principals and the teachers decide together on a yearly basis what curricular materials they will use, apparently without the assistance of a curriculum supervisor. I hasten to add: I honestly don't know if implementing a published program would obviate the need for a curriculum cordinator in our district, which is much larger than Solomon Schechter (or Our Lady of Sorrows, which uses the evil, enslaving, scripted Open Court and reports in its literature that all its students perform above grade level on the Terra Novas). Our district may require an administrator to ensure the intended effects of any curriculum were being obtained. Then again, perhaps that could be accomplished by other administrative means. I know it's possible, since the exemplary Abington Avenue school in Newark uses a program decision-making model like the one I'm describing, rather than being dictated to by a district supervisor. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 859 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I would rather drop all expensive tests other than a national test and spend the money on more teachers and materials... " Me too. But if you think opposition to NCLB is vociferous... | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1128 Registered: 2-2001 |
Cynicalgirl, Arguments about curriculum have been going on for for hundreds of years--but are probably more noticeable in diverse towns under pressure. Also, unlike at all times in the past, schools are now held responsible for the high level achievement of EVERY student. For many years, only some kids did well and the rest ended up in the trades or on the assembly line or whatever. There were more options for those not academically inclined--provided they were white, of course. You could have a career making buns for White Castle and be middle class (I know someone who does this). So, topics such as which curriculum is best for all kids is only going to get more intense, especially with NCLB. I know it seems like weird talk to the unfamiliar, but so does the speciallized terminology of every profession. When I first started out working as a temp in IT I felt like I was a two year old again; I could not understand any of the conversations happening around me using phrases and terms that just sounded stupid and derived from some bad post-something lit class. The same thing happens in education, but because everyone goes through school, many seem to feel it should be simple and understandable for all and according to everyone's common sense, which is assumed to be commonly shared. But, it's not simple and it's dealing with human beings so it's even more complex than any IT decision could ever be. The kind of curriculum you had sounds similar to what I had also--and I guess for many it's sort of like, "well I had that and I'm OK." There is a certian comfort level. But, unfortunately, not everyone was OK with it and for some it was not helpful or maybe even harmful. And so the debate goes on. You also have the discussion on the level of who should be in control--the government, the local districts, the teachers, etc.and so for the fed up the idea of a national curriculum is appealing. But I think few have followed through on figuring out what that would really be like and may not be so agreeable if they did. Read the Texas teacher link above for some idea of what might happen. Better to bone up on the Ed lingo and join in the arguments on MOL. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 365 Registered: 9-2003 |
Thank you, Nan...BTW, I think most of the IT lingo, just like MBA lingo, just like Education lingo, is kinda crap, too. I wince when I use it, and only do so to be heard. I think most of it is right up there with "Sanitation Engineer," seeking to make complex and expensive and hard to understand issues and concepts that "they" would rather we didn't understand, to insure they're continued employment. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1129 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fringe, Well guess what? Gerald Bracey has not been an employee of NEA since 1991, when because of disagreements he was forced to resign. The story is discussed in today's Washington Post: What the Media Are Missing Reports of Average Test Scores Mask Improvements Made by Minorities By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 27, 2004; 10:30 AM Mention Gerald W. Bracey's name in any assemblage of educational pundits and you will often hear an awkward silence. Since his first foray into corrective journalism led to his forced resignation as senior policy analyst at the National Education Association 12 years ago, Bracey has often offended self-appointed experts like me by exposing us to the truth, and he is rarely invited to any of our parties. This makes Bracey, an associate with the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation and an associate professor of education at George Mason University, testy at times. Some of his e-mails to people he thinks are wrong may use words our mothers told us never to repeat in polite company. But like a stinging cold shower on a languid summer day, he has invigorated the debate over schools. Just look at what he did in the February issue of the American School Board Journal. Read the rest here--- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52280-2004Jan27.html | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1130 Registered: 2-2001 |
Jennifer, Well, gosh. Perhaps you can point out to me where on the ACE website it says that it's important for teachers to make decisions? Where does it say that these programs should be altered and edited and heavily supplemented? Where does it say that ACE disagrees with the publishers of these curriculums (especially the publisher of Reading Mastery) that these programs should be used as written? Help me, I'm looking. Where in the ACE funded and endorsed evaluation of the SOMEA curriculum do the special ed behavior experts say that teachers should be able to change these programs as they wish? Just point me in the right direction-- I've got the entire evaluation printed out, including the part with the bubbled in the dots and jotted down comments. They don't mention the word teacher very often, but here's a few relevent comments I found: [Item rated lowest possible score] "typically noted as suggested activities, it is up to the teacher to choose" (pg. 7 Nancy Marchand Martella--critical elements Analysis) [Item rated lowest possible score] "left to teacher to decide." (pg. 22 - Nancy Marchand-Martella, Critical Elements Analysis). And then from another ACE hired and endorsed special ed behaviorist evaluator, Ron Nelson, emphasizing these words of advice in bold (emphasis in document, not mine): The requirements of curriculum construction and instructional design that effectively move children through the 'learning to read' stage to the 'reading to learn stage' are simply too important to leave to the judgment of individuals. The better the core addresses instructional priorities, the less teachers will need to supplement and modify instruction for the majority of the learners. But, your kid is using an ACE recommended program and the teacher is doing lots of modification and supplimentation. What's that all about? | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 860 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Where in the ACE funded and endorsed evaluation of the SOMEA [sic] curriculum do the special ed behavior experts say that teachers should be able to change these programs as they wish?" Well it sure wasn't a SOMEA curriculum ACE had evaluated. It was a SOMA curriculum. And you're playing semantics games again. No one has said that "teachers should be able to change these programs as they wish". That could mean anything, couldn't it? What I have said several times now is that teachers and principals must collaborate to determine how best to teach the students in their care. That entails not a "do your own thing" approach, but constant, class-level, school-level evaluation of students, teachers, and curricula, with constant adjustment to high standards and the expectation of constant improvement. We're talking about objective testing being used for internal evaluation and improvement here. That's the model at Schechter, at Abington, and (I believe) at Our Lady of Sorrows. It is certainly not in conflict with what ACE has recommended for our district. Here's what you're pretending you've never seen, nan; we've discussed it before, remember? (Reading between the lines with your usual bent, you pronounced that "supplemental" meant that everything but the "drill and kill" would be relegated to a small corner of instruction and children would never have time to read anything but brain-calcifying basals.): "Likely, programs such as Word Journeys or Words Their Way or activities such as those found in Readers and Writers Workshop within the Integrated Language Arts Curriculum [i.e., what we have now] might be good supplements in the classroom--supplements to a scientifically validated reading program(s). ["Scientifically validated" here corresponds to the supposedly "scripted" curricula whose approaches you insist are not scientifically validated--like Houghton Mifflin and Open Court.] They may be likened to extension activities. Supplements provide additonal cover and practice in the classroom. These activities might serve as additional tools, motivating and engaging students in additional reading activities. As supplements, these materials might be useful due to their integration of reading and writing activities. The inclusion of writing instruction for the youngest students was one of the positive aspects of the Integrated Language Arts Curriculum." This is straight out of the Recommendations section of the curriculum analysis ACE commissioned. Boldface is in the original, which goes on to call for effectiveness data to be maintained on any programs to be used. Note that the authors allow for the possibility of using more than one curriculum--how can that be, if the curricula you so despise must be followed strictly, as hermetically sealed programs? You quote Ron Nelson and I reiterate: "The requirements of curriculum construction and instructional design that effectively move children through the 'learning to read' stage to the 'reading to learn stage' are simply too important to leave to the judgment of individuals. The better the core addresses instructional priorities, the less teachers will need to supplement and modify instruction for the majority of the learners." What is being discussed here are the basics. (The paragraph you quote from is entitled "What is a Core Reading Program?") Yet you interpret it to mean something other than that, even though "core curriculum" is plainly defined in the very same paragraph as the "primary tool that teachers use to teach children to read and ensure that they reach reading levels that meet or exceed grade level standards." Look at Nelson's last sentence: "The better the core addresses instructional priorities, the less teachers will need to supplement and modify instruction for the majority of the learners." Does that really imply to you that there will be no enrichment of the core curriculum?? Or does it mean that using a "scientifically validated" core curriculum means that less remediation will be needed in basic, "core," competencies, for the majority of students? "But, your kid is using an ACE recommended program and the teacher is doing lots of modification and supplimentation." Supplementation (of the enrichment variety), not "modification" that I'm aware of, unless she's skipping over portions of the program that her class doesn't require. The kids come home with individualized spelling lists drawn from the curricular texts they're reading, so I'm sure she differentiates instruction across the LA program. Seems to work pretty well--and not just at Schechter, as I've already pointed out. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1133 Registered: 2-2001 |
Thanks for pointing out the correction on SOMEA/SOMA -- I want to be very clear. And I hope to understand clearly what you are saying because it seems to me that your view that teachers and principals should collaborate on curriculum is directly undermined by the ACE evaluation. What if the principals and teachers wanted to implement a literature-based program? Would that be acceptable to ACE and the hired special ed behaviorists evaluation team? Would the school still get funding from Title 1 for that? That's not what happened in New York--even when they tried to fulfill the supposedly scientifically proven requirements. They were told to use one of the programs on the short list or else. Why do you support such restrictive guidelines--at least for the public schools? When J. Ron Nelson is talking about "basics" he's basically talking about teachers using a supposedly "scientifically certified product" fully--not making decisions on their own. If I'm wrong then show me where he explains that distinction clearly. Show me where he says--"Oh, just use part of this three hour lesson plan and bypass the rest if you think it's a waste of time." Why do you think so many public schools cut out all the extra subjects just to get enough time to teach reading? If they are cutting out science and social studies and recess when are they supposed to find more time to do the supplements that Nelson might be a bit more flexible about? But the implications of that seem lost on you as you are brag about the Read Across America program in your kid's school. Do you think J. Ron Nelson could do a literature search on that the same way he did on Readers and Writers Workshop ["A computer search-(1996-May,2003) of the ERIC, PsychLit, and Child Educational Resources was conducted to identify efficacy and effectiveness research on Readers and Writers Workshop. . .This search did not yield any efficacy or effectiveness studies on Readers and Writers Workshop or its potential synergistic effect on others.] and come up with scientifically validated studies showing that it works? Doubtful. Most likely he'd say the same thing he said about our district's use of Readers and Writers workshop: . ."without efficacy or effectiveness data on these programs, we are left to wonder about their use, even as supplements in the classroom." How come your kid at the private school can get non-scientifically proven reading instruction and you think it's great but when SOMA does that you call in a violence prevention expert to warn us that such folly will have "great human and economic costs." | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 863 Registered: 3-2003 |
"And I hope to understand clearly what you are saying..." Please, will you spare me the amateur hermeneutics? No matter what I (or anyone at ACE) says, you will interpret our meaning to suit your polemical aims. This will, therefore, be my last contribution to our discussion for a while. "What if the principals and teachers wanted to implement a literature-based program? Would that be acceptable to ACE and the hired special ed behaviorists evaluation team?" So long as "literature based" is nothing but a euphemism for not teaching the mechanics of reading adequately in K-3, of course not. Because merely “wanting” to implement a program does not answer any evidentiary requirement about its likely effectiveness. ACE advocates for teaching phonics explicitly and systematically in grades K-3 because there’s adequate research and empirical evidence to suggest that this is a reliable approach to imparting basic reading skills. (I know, you disagree.) However, I should point out that one of the very researchers ACE hired for its evaluation, Nancy Marchand-Martella, advised the group at the outset of her effort that there was no need to evaluate our curriculum beyond grade 3, since after grade 3 a "literature based" program such as our district employs can be perfectly appropriate. In other words, once kids master the mechanics of reading, there’s no reason one shouldn’t focus on fluency and breadth. (I do agree with you, however, that intensive vocabulary development must be started early, but that isn’t happening now across our district and I’ve never seen you explain how you think it ought to happen, other than via extensive exposure to “authentic” literature. I think that’s essential, but insufficient.) "But the implications of that seem lost on you..." What implications? I've just explained to you, as per the example of the school my son attends, that there are no necessary dire implications of using published curricula. I mean, yes, I suppose the SOMA school district could make a conscious decision to fuck up our kids' education completely by eliminating music, art, social studies, science and recess in order to focus entirely on language arts and math. But do you honestly think that's what would happen here if we went to a published curriculum? Would such a maneuver be remotely in line with the goals of the BOE and the district admin? And can you not entertain the possibility that giving teachers some materials to work with might save us money in the long run, and might actually allow for shifts in the budget that would enhance, rather than continue to whittle away at the local education product? "Most likely [Nelson would] say the same thing he said about our district's use of Readers and Writers workshop: . ."without efficacy or effectiveness data on these programs, we are left to wonder about their use, even as supplements in the classroom."" Well, I think you misunderstand what Nelson is getting at (although that’s somewhat understandable, as he’s speaking in jargon). When he talks of “efficacy,” as I understand him, he’s referring to program efficacy as defined by published research. What he means by “effectiveness” is how well a program works <u>for us</i>, as measured by empirical and objective statistical data collected locally. Thus, for Nelson, if our district can show positive efficacy or effectiveness data on any of our individual programs, that should suffice to permit their inclusion in our curriculum. But what objective evaluation points to the effectiveness of any one of our K-3 programs now? Given the nature of our current curriculum-cum-mass remediation effort, can anyone even know what's being measured? "How come your kid at the private school can get non-scientifically proven reading instruction and you think it's great but when SOMA does that you call in a violence prevention expert..." Nan, you're spinning yourself into the ground. My kid's LA curriculum is Houghton Mifflin, which, as I've already noted, is considered a "science-based" curriculum. In addition to that, he gets whatever the teachers and principals at his school (not some remote district overseer) collectively determine--via observation and feedback and outcomes measurement--works for their students and what doesn’t. They do this by studying their own performance, class by class, and altering their approach as needed. This is the same way programming is done at Abington, which uses constant measurement and evaluation to adjust programs as needed over time. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1135 Registered: 2-2001 |
Thanks for proving my point. You had me ROFL with the one where you claimed Ron Nelson wanted to examine our program as measured by "objective statistical data collected locally" by doing literature searches in ERIC, PsychLit, and Child Educational Resources? Don't you think maybe the NJ Report Card would have been a smarter choice? And by the way, I notice that the ACE website does not recommend Houghton Mifflin for grades K-1. It says it "does not have a strong enough phonemic awareness/phonics component. Must use a different K-1 program." Does your kid's school use Houghton for those grades or have they substituted one of the acceptable options: Open Court, Reading Mastery, Voyager, Read Well? If not, I hope you have extended your advocacy to the parents at Schector whose children may be receiving instruction with what you believe is an insufficient reading program. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1145 Registered: 2-2001 |
Guess we aren't going to get the information on that program. Well, here's more evidence that the Reading First component of NCLB is FORCING schools to choose from a few questionably selected choices. February 4, 2004 Reading Programs Bear Similarities Across the States By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo Researchers and policymakers may be continuing to debate solutions to the nation's reading woes, but many struggling schools appear to have reached a consensus on the subject, even if not by choice. As President Bush's flagship reading initiative hits full stride, it is yielding a more uniform approach to teaching the essential skill to children deemed at risk of failing the subject. Those schools receiving their share of the $900 million Reading First measure have turned to many of the same core reading programs, assessments, professional-development materials, and consultants—a situation some prominent scholars lament. "There are similarities from coast to coast," said Richard A. Allington, the author of Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How Ideology Trumped Evidence. "This is an amazing one-size-fits-all approach." When they began rolling out the much-touted reading plan under the No Child Left Behind Act, federal education officials assured states they would be given latitude in determining the best way to transform reading instruction in their schools, provided they took an approach grounded in scientific research. Now that all the state grants have been approved, and some 2,000 schools have received funding, there appear to be close connections in the way many districts and schools are implementing the program. In fact, schools from Atlanta to Seattle are applying their Reading First grants to take remarkably similar approaches to the subject, according to recent interviews with state Reading First coordinators and descriptions of the state plans available on the Internet. "More and more districts are doing the right thing as narrowly defined," said Susan B. Neuman, a University of Michigan researcher. As the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education in the Bush administration until a year ago, she oversaw the Reading First program. "It's like playing 'telephone,' where we hear one state's doing this, so we'll do it too. ... When I saw one local proposal, it was nothing but a cut-and-paste job from various others." Copycats The local grantees appear to be copying strategies, in part because many may have had or at least perceived few options in choosing curricula, teacher-training programs, or assessments. The law's strict requirements, confusion over how to meet them, and pressure to appease federal reviewers after they sent the applications back to states for numerous revisions compelled many of their grant-proposal writers to be more prescriptive, according to Charlotte Postelwaite, the chief education policy analyst for the Council of State Governments, located in Lexington, Ky. Some states reasoned that they could speed the grant process by simply following the lead of others that had gained early approval of their Reading First plans. Still other states gave up their original designs to meet the September 2003 deadline for getting applications approved. Instead, they went with the assessments and professional-development plans they believed would be viewed more favorably on their applications, said Ms. Postelwaite, who sent extensive questionnaires to state Reading First directors last year. Most states, though, did not initially see the need to specify which commercial reading programs would be accepted, particularly after federal officials refuted criticism that there was a preferred "list." But nearly all states outlined in their plans that local grant recipients would use the same framework—"A Consumer's Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program," produced by researchers at the University of Oregon—for evaluating whether a commercial product has the research base required under the federal law. Only a few brand- name products can meet the criteria outlined in the guide, some observers say. Moreover, to reduce the burden on district personnel, some states have carried out their own reviews of reading programs on the market using the guide, and issued preferred or required lists for grantees to choose from. In some cases, states collaborated on such reviews, as did Alabama, Idaho, Montana, and Washington, for instance. Several states, including Alaska, have simply borrowed the analyses conducted by those further along in the process. In most states, districts are permitted to stray from the list if they can show evidence that their own approaches are effective, though those plans are less likely to gain approval, state officials say. Lastly, many states have turned to the same corps of experts for professional development and technical assistance—some of them the same consultants to the U.S. Department of Education who helped develop Reading First. Those same consultants—including Edward Kameenui and other researchers at the University of Oregon, and SoprisWest consultant Louisa Moats—also led the reading "academies" that served as a primer for state education officials on what the law required. Several state directors said they tapped those advisers because of their deep understanding of the research and reputations for implementing effective practices. Others, however, acknowledged that they felt compelled to hire those who had been recognized by federal officials as experts. "We did feel that there was a very select number of professional-development providers we had an option to work with," said Faith Stevens, Michigan's Reading First director. After three unsuccessful attempts at winning grant money under the previous federal initiative, the Reading Excellence Act, Michigan officials decided to dictate their approach to Reading First. The state requires districts that receive the federal grants to choose from an approved list of commercial reading programs. That list is limited to five core reading programs: Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Open Court, Macmillan/McGraw- Hill, and Scott Foresman. Many of the same titles have been identified by other states as meeting Reading First's criteria for "research based" materials and instruction. For many supporters of Reading First and those who have pushed for a more standardized, explicit, and systematic approach to teaching reading to students at risk of reading failure, the changes are welcome relief from the hodgepodge of methods and materials they say have characterized instruction for more than a decade. "One of the things you can't miss when you look at these schools is that many of them are the worst prepared to do anything with respect to school reform," said G. Michael Pressley, a professor of psychology at the University of Notre Dame who has been an author for McGraw-Hill's Open Court Reading series. "For the weakest schools, it's not a bad thing for them to get a good program and learn how to teach it." Standing Firm Some school leaders are not convinced that the research prescribes such limited choices. In Massachusetts, Michigan, and Virginia, for instance, a number of districts eligible for the federal money—which is targeted to the schools with the lowest performance in the subject and/or the largest proportions of needy students—have chosen not even to apply, citing their unwillingness to adopt prescribed texts or abandon their current literacy initiatives. Other districts that felt confident that more holistic literacy initiatives would meet the federal requirements have met considerable resistance in many states. After months of defending a more progressive citywide literacy curriculum, for example, New York City officials did an about-face last month and promised to require a more structured program for Reading First schools. ("N.Y.C. Shifts Reading Plan in 49 Needy Schools," Jan. 14, 2004.) Boston educators have so far been less willing to budge from the literacy plan they adopted four years ago. It incorporates children's literature and writing workshops, in addition to basic- skills instruction and group-reading activities. Officials there were surprised, though, when the district's request for its share of the state's $15 million Reading First grant was rejected last year. "What we were trying to do was meet the state's requirement without jettisoning our work of the last four or five years," said Superintendent Thomas W. Payzant. "We thought we had found a middle ground where we would strengthen our phonics program and address some of the other areas of a balanced literacy program, but we were going to stop short of adopting a whole new program from the state list." The Boston district is again working with state officials to tweak its proposal, but Mr. Payzant said he would not abandon the district's current effort, which he says has been yielding higher test scores in several struggling schools. Mistaking Rigor? Critics have pointed to the experiences of Boston and New York City as examples of how the No Child Left Behind law has unfairly limited the choices of local decisionmakers. "If you have a school system that feels the need for [a] scripted program, then let them get the money for it," said Gerald Coles, an educational psychologist and author who has been a prominent critic of the federal law. "But for other school systems that feel [another approach] is in order, there should be a pro- choice policy. Reading First is substituting as a magic bullet a single instructional approach." Federal officials continue to deny the program is inflexible. "Taking the nation as a whole, those [criticisms] are in the minority," said Christopher Doherty, the director of Reading First for the Department of Education. "Rigorous is not the same as inflexible, ... and I am absolutely unapologetic in acknowledging that Reading First is rigorous." For state directors, many of whom say they are optimistic the changes will lead to positive results, there is little time for such debates. They are caught in the scramble to implement the program, which requires recipients to show improvement in students' test scores within two years or risk losing the money. In states that were approved late last year, that has meant reviewing local applications and organizing professional-development workshops. In Alabama and Michigan, where local recipients have had a full school year to employ their new programs, state and federal representatives are traveling to schools to review testing data and monitor how well they are sticking to the program's tenets. Both those states have gotten the word out that they will be tough on grant recipients that do not meet the challenge. In Michigan, for example, two schools have already lost their funding, according to Ms. Stevens, the state Reading First director. Months after the texts were received, "one school still had the comprehensive reading program boxed in the front office," she said. "In the other, the literacy coach was also the acting principal. They were clearly not ready." http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=21read.h23 | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1149 Registered: 2-2001 |
Here's a story from the UK that offers a cautionary tale of where we might be headed with the NCLB requirements for higher test scores in reading and math. Primary league tables 'failing pupils' By John Clare, Education Editor Daily Telegraph (London) (Filed: 05/02/2004) Primary schools spend so much time teaching literacy and numeracy - the results of which determine their position in Government league tables - that they fail to give pupils a rounded education, David Bell, the head of Ofsted said yesterday. Pointing to a widening gap in standards and quality between English and maths and most other subjects, he said: "We cannot afford, and our children do not deserve, a two-tier curriculum. "Every pupil deserves to experience the stimulus and challenge offered to the mind and the imagination by studying the arts and the humanities to a satisfying level." Yet only a small proportion of the 18,000 primary schools in England succeeded in combining high standards in English and maths with a rich and varied curriculum. In the rest, the Government's national literacy and numeracy strategies were apparently having a "narrowing effect". Throughout a child's time in primary school, too much of the teaching in geography, history, art and design, music, physical education and religious education remained "flat and ordinary", Mr Bell said. The fact that pupils' scores in the national tests in English and maths had not improved for the past three years - itself a cause for concern - suggested that the widening gap was because of declining performance in the other subjects. The teaching unions were quick to react. "Performance league tables and the pressure they place on schools to teach to tests lies at the heart of the problem," said the NASUWT. "Subjects such as history, geography and the arts are suffering because of the Government's obsession with tests, targets and tables," said the NUT, a long-standing opponent of all three. The National Association of Head Teachers, whose members run most primary schools, laid the blame on "the funding crisis and the lack of resources in schools". David Miliband, the schools minister, emphasised the importance of an "enriched" curriculum but insisted there would be "no let-up in our focus on higher standards in literacy and numeracy - it is morally and educationally right". Read the rest here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F02%2F05%2Fnscho0 5.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=109329 | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 614 Registered: 5-2001 |
nan is boring. the proof is in the pudding. DWM |
