| Author | Message | ||
     just me fromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 163 Registered: 7-2003 |
i'm not sure where to confirm this BUT i thought back in 1980 an 18 year old ran, and i think won a seat on the boe. his name was charlie blizzard, if my memory s correct. i did a google search with no luck. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 683 Registered: 5-2001 |
Please! The relationship is between letters in our alphabet and "phonemes," which are the sound units in our language. The '97 - '98 LA curriculum review identified a "need to...modify the scope and sequence at the K - 2 level to fill in the areas that the present program does not sufficiently address: this modification needs to include, among others, an explicit, systematic, and meaningful teaching sequence for: spelling and phonemic awareness; literary elements; and writing in different genres...." The so-called response is the September 1998 Teaching Sequence: Phonemic Awareness, Phonological Awareness, Spelling and Handwriting, Grades Kindergarten to Three. It is an outcomes based version by the traditional LA powers Moe, Larry and Curley, (with apologies to their obvious love of comedic arts), with no sequence at all. Rather, it is a graft attempt, trying to preserve the failed district policies, [admitted by the committee report pointing out the need to modify the scope and sequence at the K - 2 level]. The attempt mis-read K - 2 as K - 3. Hmmm. A great start. The Sequence is a mish mosh of citations to pages in books referenced by the anonymous author(s), in the context of Whole Language topic headings Emergent [tadpole stage], Advanced Emergent [help me bio students], Beginning [to what?], Developing [what?], and Fluent Primary [whole language Super Tuesday]. The teachers were given no curriculum, no support, no actual methodology to study, no tools. So, stop quoting others and follow the district's yellow brick road, and ye shall behold the curricular emperor wears no clothes. Still after all these years not a pretty picture. DWM | ||
| John Davenport Citizen Username: Jjd Post Number: 158 Registered: 2-2003 |
DWM is absolutely right. And Harpo, I was joking about Aristotle (I thought that was obvious...?). He only got into this thread because someone brought in Alexander the Great! My reason for doubting Nan's claim that "research shows that onset and rhyme is more easily learned than individual letter sounds blended together. In other words, it's often better to teach a kid that the word part is composed of a \p\ and the word \art\ than to have them sound out \p\a\r\t\" is primarily my own personal experience. My kids, and every other kid I've ever watched try this (and I've watched lots, starting with my younger siblings...) figured it out by going "P" "A" "R" "T" (we have no phonemic symbols on this editor, but you know what I mean). Of course some vowel combinations have to be learned as wholes, but recognizing syllable wholes, and word wholes at a glance -- No Way (unless your kid is truly a genius, and I mean IQ 150+). I trust my experience over this "research" any day. I'm not trying to discredit you or your research Nan. I know you have a body of work that you know well, and stand behind. I simply disagree that our current curriculum is balanced in the way you say it is. And you still have not explained why the ACE report offends you personally, as if it involved a moral wrong of some kind Nan. You have only explained why you disagree with it (and unsurprisingly I disagree with the substance of your explanation of that...). But the ACE report has nothing to do with NCLB, except that both hope to help close the racial performance gap, in our case by bringing in a more rigorous curriculum. This connection with NCLB is a total red herring. Nor have you explained why we should not try a published, widely tested curriculum to see if there is improvement after a couple of years. I'm making a good 'insufficient reason' argument here -- not claiming that I or ACE or anyone has omnicient insight into what will work. Give me one -- just one! -- good reason why we should not try it ACE's way for a while, and see if our kids benefit? If not, we can go back to what we have, and I'll even vote to appoint you LA Supervisor. How's that? (I've seen cost estimates for published curricula, by the way, and although they vary widely, they are not shocking, as you implied. You were the one trying this scare tactic. It seems to be your only reason not for trying a published LA curriculum. It is not a good reason. I'm still waiting for one). | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1324 Registered: 6-2001 |
John Davenport, I didn't realize you were joking. When people say they are certain, I tend to think they mean it. (I was the one who brought in Alexander the Great, simply to say I don't prejudge the capacities of 18 year olds who set their minds to accomplishing something.) I know several former and current teachers of elementary school students and their professional experience teaching reading is that children learn to read in different ways, and that a classroom teacher doesn't find out what an individual student needs until they begin to work together. If all the children you know learn one way, it may be you don't know a very wide variety of children. In fact, I didn't learn to read the way you describe. Not everybody learns to read sounding out words. I've been reading Russell Baker's autobiography, and in it he humorously states (more or less) that he was born, then fell asleep for 3 years, and when he woke up, he could read! I know what he's saying. I'm not arguing for the current curriculum. I'm arguing against people saying their personal experience is a reason all M/SO children should be taught that way, and I'm arguing against labeling one's preferred curriculum as "more rigorous" (because it drills and drills?) or "scientific." Thank you for posting ACE has no omniscient insight into what reading program will work for all the students. Since children learn in a variety of ways and no one reading method has been shown to work for all students, might not it make more sense to have more than one reading program in place? You seem to be proposing a single curriculum for all students for several years. Just to satisfy your curiousity? Several years is an awfully long time in the life of elementary students. I've never asked but: Do all the teachers support a change in curriculum? Do some or most like teaching the current curriculum or would they prefer teaching ACE's way? Teacher enthusiasm counts for a huge amount in student success, and politics or ideology should take a back seat to that, I think. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1325 Registered: 6-2001 |
DWM, All I can say is: Sez you (and not very clearly). I'm willing to listen to someone say there is more to the story. Even if I took everything you said as true, it would seem your side is proposing remedies that don't address the problem (lack of resources) or are more drastic than warranted. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 957 Registered: 3-2003 |
"The spoken Greek of Aristotle's day contained many sounds not found in Greek writing, and even today requires whole word recognition." Exactly what are you talking about, Harpo? Re Steven Strauss, your quote makes him seem a disinterested guy, but he is an avid Whole Language soldier, as even the most cursory Googling reveals. His predilictions are laid out here: (http://www.nrrf.org/review_strauss9-01.htm) Strauss's rhetoric is numbingly familiar to readers of MOL's ed threads. Another, more succinct response to Strauss, and to his corporate bogeyman argument, regularly adduced by anti-phonics zealots, is found here: http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol30_07/AERA300707.pdf | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 958 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Since children learn in a variety of ways and no one reading method has been shown to work for all students, might not it make more sense to have more than one reading program in place?" Sure. I've written at length about my own kid's experience in a private school that does just that. (Solomon Schechter uses one of the hideous "scripted" curricula you guys think you know all about; it doesn't seem to prevent the second graders from reading Stuart Little and making dioramas and mobiles for Junie B. Jones book reports.) I also went to visit an unusually successful public school in Newark to see what they were doing, and reported back about the variety of ways the school had incorporated different reading strategies (including phonics) into their program. Moreover, both John Davenport and I have argued repeatedly online for a mere pilot phonics program to be tried in one school, or a few K-3 classes, just to see if it helps children in our district. Both Nan and Julia Burch have come out against the idea. And you will, too. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 959 Registered: 3-2003 |
On the subject of resources, Harpo, the anti-phonics argument would have you believe that a curriculum would cost this district more money than it is spending now. Well, a curriculum surely would cost something, but how much would depend on a) whether we bought every component of it or cherry picked the parts we needed (which is entirely doable), and b) whether the use of it would reduce our reliance on remedial instruction. Currently, I think more than a quarter of first and second graders are in Project Ahead. The cost of that is not peanuts, particularly since some 50% of kids remain in remediation for more than a year. If a published curriculum--even basal readers and some aligned staff development--could reduce that figure, we'd quite plausibly save money on K-2 reading instruction overall. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 960 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I didn't realize you were joking." I can't figure out if this is because you never know when anyone is joking, or if it's because you wondered if Davenport was going to bring up the point that Aristotle did in fact define the concept of the phoneme. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 465 Registered: 6-2003 |
This whole debate about language instruction completely misses the point. Children learn language in many different ways, and the skill of the teacher is a lot more important than the minute details of the curriculum. Personally, I am in favor of using an established curriculum for the simple reason that more of our teachers will be able to use it effectively. It will be familiar to new teachers from outside our district, and familiar to the people that provide professional development - part of which ought to deal with helping learners that don't respond well to the established curriculum. Moreover, an established curriculum is familar to parents, librarians, relatives, and everyone else who helps a child learn. There's clearly a need for change, and although I have great respect for the teachers that contributed to the more successful parts of our current curriculum, the time has come to provide our teaching staff with more widely established tools, as well as continuing instruction in how to best use them. I'd suggest that the Board take this up as soon as they have found a new Superintendent. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1328 Registered: 6-2001 |
J Crohn, I never heard of Strauss until my internet search yesterday, but thanks for the added info. As for how my thinking will develop: Do you rely on astrology as well as Ms. Cleo? Montagnard, I see your reasoning. But I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my father-in-law a week or so ago. He was a guidance counselor in the NYC school system for decades, so I asked him what he thought of No Child Left Behind. He said: "First of all, you don't educate systems. You teach kids." I'm not saying you're an advocate of NCLB or that what you advocate necessarily puts individual kids second to an efficient system. While I agree with you that "minute" details of the curriculum don't matter, I think it does matter which curriculum is used, and well known shouldn't trump well done as a rule, even if well done is more expensive. The best curriculum plus resources to implement it should be the common goal. I often think the real problem with school reform across the nation is insufficient resources. I'm not trying to caricature your arguments. I'm just articulating my own views in response: I think curricula need to be scrutinized for values other than widespread use. I also think the arguments people use to push for a particular curriculum need to be scrutinized in order to see how well the advocates themselves reason and to determine what their educational values are. I don't approach this scrutiny with prejudice for a particular outcome. I just think it needs to be done. Before I entrust people with the school system, I want to know that they themselves think soundly. It just seems self-defeating to me to attempt to run a childhood education project if the adults running it aren't in possession of mature reasoning skills. How long before there could be a new Superintendent? Doesn't the present one have a contract? | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 964 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Do you rely on astrology as well as Ms. Cleo?" No, that's a lapsed Christian's predisposition. I rely on Merkabah mysticism. Harpo, you are guaranteed to reject a pilot phonics program. I say that not only because it's a solid bet, but because, knowing your contrarian tendencies, I have something to gain by challenging you to prove me wrong. Meanwhile, you have not answered my question about this claim: "The spoken Greek of Aristotle's day contained many sounds not found in Greek writing, and even today requires whole word recognition." Please support it. | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 685 Registered: 5-2001 |
my side, h person? The committee report is available, if you care. The official district position is my side!!! Too bad the LA dept., esp. Wilson, and don't forget Memoli and super H, stonewall improving the curruculum. DWM | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 965 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I think curricula need to be scrutinized for values other than widespread use." Then scrutinize any K-3 reading curriculum you like for values (I suspect you can find a list of URLs for research-based curricula at the ACE website) and tell us which ones will in fact turn our children into corporate clones who can't think independently, like the poor unwashed natives in foreign lands Nan famously burps about. (One would think the expatriate products of India's education system had not written a massively disproportionate share of the computer code she reportedly works with every day, that a startling number of Indian novelists hadn't come to international prominence in the last decade, or that immigrant work restrictions aren't harming academic science in the US, which for many years has been accustomed to hiring brilliant minds from China and Africa.) I'm convinced much of the hysteria over published reading programs is facilitated by the fact that the hysterics haven't actually encountered any, nor honestly inquired into circumstances where this kind of curriculum appears to be helping. It's easier, more impressive, and more politically effective to damn sinister politicians, and greedy textbook publishers, and all the other goons who would demand "rigid thinking" of our children and deny them their natural creativity etc. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1330 Registered: 6-2001 |
Your psychic powers don't give you the answer, JC? Try pressing envelopes to your forehead. I think the thread has moved beyond Aristotle and into the realm of the Great Karnak. DWM, I don't have "a side" yet when it comes to the local LA issues, and I don't know that I ever will. I do intend to vote in the BOE election and hope to be able to learn before then all the candidates viewpoints on a variety of issues. Thanks for directing me to the committee report. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 966 Registered: 3-2003 |
By the way, what DWM is getting at, in his inimitable way, is that he was on the language review committee and therefore has some idea of what its summary report said. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 967 Registered: 3-2003 |
Harpo: "I think the thread has moved beyond Aristotle and into the realm of the Great Karnak." Karnak, reporting from one of my visions of the saints, says it’s looking like you can't substantiate your claim that modern and ancient Greek require whole word recognition. As far as I know, Aristotle would have written, discoursed, and taught in Attic. There may have been words in the Koine that Greek orthography (a modification of Phoenician, which was quite like Hebrew) could not well approximate, but that would have had little to do with Aristotle. In any case, it is perfectly routine for languages to be transliterated into orthographies which contain no alphabetic assignments to certain sounds. For instance, there is no Arabic equivalent of the English long "o"; the "O" in "Osama bin Laden" is actually something between a long "o" and a long "u" pronounced in the throat rather than with the lips. So it is approximated in Latinate writing as "Osama" or "Ousama" or "Usama". English speakers also do not pronounce the slight glottal break signified by the apostrophe in "sha'ria," or distinguish between the first and second "a's" in "Allah" (nor can we orthographically represent the sound of that second "a"). None of which requires that Arabic be learned via whole word recognition when rendered in Latin letters (or otherwise). So what makes you think Greek--which in Aristotle's time was an amalgam of dialects and langauges put together by force of empire--was or is any different? | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 2827 Registered: 5-2001  |
J. Crohn for BOE! | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1334 Registered: 6-2001 |
JC, Good try pressing the envelope to your forehead. To answer the final question, you might try sticking it in your ear. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 969 Registered: 3-2003 |
The ghost of Johnny Carson advises me to take this latest salvo as your shamefaced admission that you had no idea what you were talking about, but were hoping to get by on sheer bravado. |
