| Author | Message | ||
     nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1195 Registered: 2-2001 |
Dead, I don't agree with anything you have to say in your NR letter. But, it is nice to see you writing in full sentences for a change. Keep up the good work. I've been very busy at work, but I hope to have lots more to say on this topic soon. Fondly, Nan XXXOOOOXXXX p.s. JCrohn and I are really the same person. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 327 Registered: 5-2001 |
I hope that the future posts will focus on the difference in interpretation of the 1998 Language Arts curriculum review as espoused by two of the committee members. If Mr. Dranove's remarks are accurate, what can we expect from the 2004 review currently underway, headed by Asst Super Memoli. As the committee also includes some ACE members, were Memoli's remarks in the N-R directed at them? | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1198 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fringe, It seems, from your posts, that you support ACE's recommendation that we implement scripted phonics programs. I am curious about this, because in your and Jim's editorial you were calling for a severely restricted school budget, and even suggesting that anything extra be paid for by parents. How can you hold such a position and support then those who would have us spend so much money on expensive language arts programs without any proof that they would work better than what we have now? Furthermore, these programs are purported to work only if followed closely, but are being promoted by the ACE folks as non-scripted reference material for teachers to use as they wish. How did that one slide by you and Jim? Do you have any idea how much these programs cost? If not, why have you not been asking since you are so concerned with the tax implications of the budget? Let's check out the prices. Open Court, for example, requires first grade teachers to have a 10 Unit teacher's guide at $56.16 per unit ($561.60 per teacher). Additional listed required teacher's materials include a phonics package ($397.62), Language Arts Big Book ($296.61), Big Book package of 6 books ($318.54), Phonics Skills Annotated Teacher's Edition ($39.99), Phonics Skills Blackline Master ($37.92), Comprehension and Language Arts Skills Blackline Masters ($37.92), Writer's Workbook Annotated Teacher's Edition ($39.99), Writer's Workbook Blackline Masters ($37.92), Spelling and Vocabulary Skills Blackline Masters ($37.92), Unit Assessment Annotated Teacher's Editions Package - Units 1-10 ($45.57), Unit Assessment Blackline Masters Package - Units 1-10 ($34.20), Program Assessment Annotated Teacher's Edition ($39.99), Program Assessment Blackline Masters ($30.78), Diagnostic Assessment - Levels-K-3 ($44.94), Overhead Transparencies ($41.82). Requirements for each student include: Little Big Books Pkg. (6 books) ($45.51), First Reader and Second Reader (2 @ $7.95), Student Anthology Book 1 & Book 2 (2 @ 31.65), Phonics, Spelling, Vocabulary workbooks (3 @ $10.95), Writing workbook ($10.11), Assessment Workbook Package Units 1-10 ($16.56), Program Assessment Workbook ($8.11). For the classroom and take home use there are decodable book sets ranging in price from about $300-$2,000 depending on what is selected. And that's not even stuff off the "Additional Materials" list. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2053 Registered: 5-2001  |
seems to me it will be a wash since we wouldn't have as many kids in Project Ahead year after year. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 991 Registered: 3-2003 |
FFof, Nor would the district need to reduce class sizes in the early grades to 15, which, last I heard, was the admin's latest plan to help close the achievement gap. (Someone please update me on that if I'm wrong.) Not that very small classes mightn't help, but it surely would be expensive considering that teacher salaries were negotiated to go up around 5% per year for the next couple of years. (I believe this was necessary, by the way.) If the achievement gap can be narrowed by using a published curriculum--and Open Court isn't the only good one out there--then class size could be maintained at 22-23 kids in first and second grade. That's not excessive by any means. And yes, one would expect to see the need for Project Ahead diminish. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2054 Registered: 5-2001 |
We can't afford the special question but we can afford the classrooms needed for 15 per class? huh? | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1199 Registered: 2-2001 |
ffof, Where's the evidence for that statement? I know of no evidence that Open Court reduces remediation, although I did see one description of it where they said it was designed to handle remediation in the classroom instead of as a pull out program. Since it basically IS a remediation program, it might work for some problem readers. But, what about our large population of normal and advanced readers? They might go nuts. There is also evidence that phonics heavy programs such as Open Court lead to comprehension problems in the upper grades. So we might see an increase in rememdiation there. By the way, I did not add numbers for training, staff development and reading coaches. So, if you still think "it's a wash" I'd like to see how. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 328 Registered: 5-2001 |
From the two letters that are the subject of this thread, it appears that a duly constituted committee made reccommendations to the BOE that the administration spokesman Memoli says were incorporated into the Language Arts curriculum and a committee says were not. Who is accurate, and why should we care? | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1204 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fringe, Did you notice I asked you some questions in my last post? Are you going to answer them? You are proving my theory about your true motives big time, but I'd rather have an open, honest discussion. I'll be waiting for your answer. In the meantime, I don't see any reason why we can't discuss the Dead-Joel letter before getting on to the real purpose of this thread. Obviously Dead-Joel wants to make it look like Memoli misrepresented the recommendations, but if you look closely at what Dead-Joel says I don't see much difference between the two. Memoli gives the high level overview, and then Dead-Joel comes in with the subtropics or sometimes self-evident points. Does Dead-Joel not know how to summarize?. I also have a bone to pick with Dead-Joel's assertion that the District has not fulfilled the recommendations. Let's look at Dead-Joel's points: 1) “there is a need to: thoroughly align our District instructional proficiencies with the State Standards and the Cumulative Progress Indicators which show evidence that those Standards have been met;” Well, excuse me, but no Sh**t, Dick Tracy. Why even state this unless you have evidence that our District is not aligned with State Standards? From what I've heard, our language arts curriculum is well aligned with State Standards. If someone thinks we are not aligned, I'd like to hear where that is. So, if we were not aligned, we are now. 2) “identify critical proficiencies that serve as benchmarks of student performance for each grade level and/or grade level cluster;” Again, another subtopic/bullet point that no doubt would be under Memoli's # 3 point: "Identify, develop, revise and adopt a variety of external published--and internal -- district developed -- assessment tools/strategies to provide multiple indicators of the quality of each child's learning and to monitor the overall effectiveness of the English language arts program. " 3) "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….” This would go under Memoli's list #1 and especially #2: 2. Replace, revise, and update core and supplementary materials at all grade levels. Also, the introduction of Word Journeys, which is a developmentally sequenced spelling-phonics program provides evidence that this has been met. Finally, Dead-Joel once again brings up Marilyn Adams, the Open Court author's recommendation that we get a published program. Now there's a surprise. At least Dead-Joel is not still claiming, as he has before, that the committee recommened phonemic awareness training for k-3. Even Marilyn Adams would consider that a dumb idea. | ||
| Who? Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 695 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fringe: The report is available, was accurately quoted, nan-o-thought was not at anything committee hearings, did not attend any board meetings, contributed nothing, but does spout dead ideas. ideas killed by experience. DWM | ||
| Who? Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 696 Registered: 5-2001 |
delete "thing" from -anything- in the above post. DWM proofreader | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1205 Registered: 2-2001 |
change "Dead-Joel" to "Dead-Joel-Who?" in the above post. Nan proofreader | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 302 Registered: 6-2002 |
The many-voiced Nan may have just posted her best Jim Memoli impression to date. I mean, check out her post about the last L.A. committee's recommendations. Does she have him down, or what? Amazing. And I don't think she even lived here when that report was being written. Pretty incredible. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 330 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ms. Elkins, If the premise of an open, honest discussion, if one is possible, is answering previously posted questions, let me remind you that on numerous occasions over the last 18 months I've asked you to provide the objective data on which you rely that shows our district's language arts curriculum has/is benefiting all students. I've yet to see that answer, but I think it the basis for any "honest" discussion between us. Until then I prefer to let the evidence, such as the letters posted here, speak for themselves. JTL | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1206 Registered: 2-2001 |
breal, I moved here in 1997. When did you move here? I don't remember you being involved with this committee in any way. In fact, I seem to remember you complaining a bit later about a much-loved whole language teacher moving from Marshall to Seth Boyden. You thought it was a big loss for Marshall and wanted your kid to be in her class. Unless you want to rewrite history, you weren't fighting for phonemes until way after the 1998 committee met and disbanded. As for Jim Memoli, you know and owe him much more than I do. He's the one that caved when you threw that hissy fit at the BOE meeting to get your fellow ACE member, Rowland Bennett, on the current LA review committee. I've only met him once--at the Louisa Moats presentation. I did send him an email requesting to be on the review committee, but he just sent back a boilerplate response. Obviously, I don't have your clout with the administration. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1207 Registered: 2-2001 |
Mr Lamkin, The NJ Report Card lists objective evidence of our LA program. What is more important, although less objective, are the interpretations of those results and the amount of significance test scores should play in our evaluation of educational curriculum. That is where we should be having the open and honest discussion. But, that is where you hid in the shadows. Thread after thread. You post some tidbit of potentially damaging information about our current administration and then you refuse to take responsibility for your remarks. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 303 Registered: 6-2002 |
Nan: There. Now that post sounds like you. As for phonemes, I had one kid that didn't need direct, explicit instruction in that kind of thing and one kid who did. Go figure. I learned as I went. Yup. I am a lifelong learner. And I came to believe that it was wrong to pretend the kids in the second category don't exist. Our curriculum is based on that false premise, and it just strikes me as wrong. Really, really wrong. They exist, and in significant numbers (a quarter of the class, maybe?), and we should teach them the way they need to be taught, not according to some seductive ideology. Even if this instruction cuts into social studies time, or bores the good readers in first grade for fifteen minutes a day. That's my agenda. Not one the parent of a great reader probably wants to hear. Nevertheless, there it is. P.S. I was a great reader AND I liked the phonics worksheets. I'm not kidding. This is a shameful confession, I know. But I liked feeling competent at something. I liked thinking about the parts of words. I especially liked this after math segments, when--and I still remember this--I'd sometimes get in such a muddle that I would raise the lid of my desk, stick my head in there, and boo hoo! | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1209 Registered: 2-2001 |
Breal, We have been over this so many times before. Sigh, here we go again. I am not agianst phonics, systematic or otherwise. I think kids need phonics, and even, to a certain point, enjoy phonics. No child should be in a first grade class where there is no or minimal phonics taught. What I am against is this insistance by you and your ACE group that ALL children benefit from an intensive phonics program and that the ONLY kind of acceptable systematic phonics is the type found in a narrow range of expensive scripted published programs. Use of those programs is NOT supported by the research they claim, and there is no such thing as a "proven program" unless you want to consider tutoring. And even that is not 100%. If a program bores the good readers, what makes you think the poor readers are going to stay awake to learn? Teaching is not the same as learning. And how are the good readers supposed to benefit from missing social studies to sit through boring lessons they don't need? How's that going to go over with the parents of normal and advanced readers? Our program is not the static anti-phonics mess you and your group keep trying to portray it as. The program has changed since your kid had those problems (and if I remember the situation it was a brand new teacher in first grade--which is not a good idea. First grade is too important to be taught by inexperienced teachers). I know you don't like Word Journeys, but if used as directed the program provides very powerful, targeted instruction, including lots of thinking about the parts of words. It even has a developmental scope and sequence which I know is important to you. Of course there is room for improvement, but since you are only interested in having it replaced you don't want to hear about that. BTW, what is YOUR plan for paying for one of those programs? I can't even get Fringe or DWM or some others to admit they cost money. And don't forget, I am also the parent of a child that had problems learning to read-he was supposed to be in Project Ahead (I signed the paperwork giving my permission). The whole time I was working with him at home, I thought he WAS in Project Ahead. The only thing I did with him at home was have him keep a journal and read me one book after another, while helping him with the words he did not know. I used a variety of strategies to help him figure out unknown words including sounding out, and context. He had lots of problems with vowels, as does every beginning reader. I did find it helped to steer him to books where he could read 90% of the words. That increased his confidence and interest. Books that he was interested in also did the same, even when they were above his level. Today, my kid even gave up Gamecube for some time to read the new Bionicle book that rolled off the presses last week. He asked me to read a chapter, and he then helped me sound out the names of the characters. You want kids to practice decoding? Forget Open Court. Get the Bionicle series into every classroom! | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 332 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ms Elkins, The time and energy I choose to put into the SO-M education debate is spread over a number of projects with MOL receiving the least attention - compare the number of my posts with yours. At present I cannot conceive of any conversation with you that would justify spending more time in this area or rearranging my current schedule to address the volume of your efforts. I suggest you continue as you have as apparently your life experience has provided you confirmation that your style is effective. If I find that my effectiveness measures, small as they are, decline - say the number of hits to the website - then I might reconsider. JTL | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1212 Registered: 2-2001 |
Very impressive Fringe. Are you able to write like that and exhale at the same time? In case you find a moment in your very busy schedule, I've enclosed another copy of my question. ----------------------------- Fringe, It seems, from your posts, that you support ACE's recommendation that we implement scripted phonics programs. I am curious about this, because in your and Jim's editorial you were calling for a severely restricted school budget, and even suggesting that anything extra be paid for by parents. How can you hold such a position and support then those who would have us spend so much money on expensive language arts programs without any proof that they would work better than what we have now? Furthermore, these programs are purported to work only if followed closely, but are being promoted by the ACE folks as non-scripted reference material for teachers to use as they wish. How did that one slide by you and Jim? Do you have any idea how much these programs cost? If not, why have you not been asking since you are so concerned with the tax implications of the budget? |
