| Author | Message | ||
     nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1811 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fringe, Glad to hear you want to increase the accuracy of your website, because I took a quick drive through the section on the LA program and found these ten factual errors right off the bat. 1.A claim that the previous LA review report recommended the district buy a published reading program. 2.The supposed existence of a “tested and proven to work” reading curriculum. 3.A list of the “five areas necessary for effective reading instruction” 4.A statement that the Reading First component of NCLB is based on “converging scientific evidence.” 5.A claim that The Simmons and Kame’enui Consumer Guide is based upon the findings of the National Research Council’s Report on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (National Academy of Sciences,1998) and the National Reading Panel Report (NICHD, 2000), 6.A claim that the ACE review of our district’s LA program was “objective.” 7.A claim that the ACE review of our district’s LA program demonstrates that it is deficient in the “five areas necessary” which were discussed in #3. 8.A claim that “Our leadership’s philosophy is based upon the belief that children are best left alone to learn to read in their own time when they are physically ready.” 9.A claim that “Thirty years of research done by the National Institutes of Health” proves that reading is not natural.” 10.A claim that reading “needs to be taught . . . in a specific, explicit way.” You should clarify, amend or remove these “facts” immediately; or, at least, supply links to alternative views and/or empirical evidence to the contrary. If you have any questions, or need help providing the links or citing sources, let me know. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 780 Registered: 5-2001 |
I assume that the above points are taken from links in the LANGUAGE ARTS CURRICULUM portion of http://hometown.aol.com/njfabian. The documents included there are public statements of elected officials, district administrators, committee members and citizen's groups directly related to the SOMSD program. They are presented to allow interested parties to consider them in their entirety without filters. I and apparently other MOL readers find any research that does not directly relate to this district less than interesting and certainly not convincing. It apperas that every study has its counter. On numerous occasions I have asked for specific local evidence supporting the conclusions of various "experts", but to no avail. When such material is available I will happily include it on the site. The statements of BOE members regarding the Language Arts curriculum that have been posted on MOL should and will be added as will Asst Super D's June comments that relate to point 8 regarding "physical readiness" and reading. Board of Education Meeting (June 21, 2004) Agenda: The Language Arts Curriculum Review Committee Report Marilyn Davenport, Assistant Superintendent of K-8, Curriculum and Instruction: There is something that I’d like to say that perhaps hasn’t been said enough. Regardless of what you use -- what materials you use -- what curriculum mistakes and all of that, there are still some children who have a very difficult time learning to read. And that’s upsetting to teachers, extremely upsetting to teachers. Teachers want to do their best and when you’re using and you’re given this something to follow, you try to use that. And every child isn’t learning, and that is upsetting to you. It’s extremely upsetting to parents. Now David [Frazer, Board of Education member], when you asked your question, "Why is it in math, if we’re not doing as well, we have people who are pleased?" It isn’t as upsetting if a child hasn’t mastered a math lesson than if he hasn’t learned to read. Now you see, again, when teachers and parents, once they get… they don’t learn to read as well and they get behind, There is really a major problem forever after. Because when they get -- now you noticed at the primary levels people weren’t quite as upset – their teachers and parents – because they feel, "Well, the children are still learning." But once you get to third, fourth, and fifth grade and you can’t read as well, the child is very aware, the parent is aware, the teacher is concerned and the child makes less progress than the child who is reading well. And what’s amazing about it, learning to read is not tied into intelligence as much as it is physical development. And physical development is something you can’t speed up. Just as a parent knows that if a child can’t walk, I can’t stand him up there and let him practice walking. Learning to read is a physical skill. And it has a lot to do – and that’s why boys …85% of boys in reading clinics are boys. I mean, 85% of children in reading clinics are boys, and that’s because their physical development at the age of 6 is 6 months behind little girls. So there’s a lot of reasons that boys have more difficulty in learning to read. But when you get – once you’re behind – you will make less progress in reading than a child who’s ahead. Now teachers, when they have children who can’t read, they get very upset. "Give me something else. Show me what to do. Give me a program that will say this is what I do, and then I do this, and then I do this." We have those programs all over the country. And actually in schools where children don’t do well, they insist you choose one of those programs. And so lots of schools have used Success for All, which tells you exactly what to do, but unfortunately it will work for some children and it doesn’t work for others. And so that’s the whole thing: it’s a very complicated process and we keep looking for quick solutions and we keep saying, you know, "Do this. Do that. Work harder. We’ve got to address the problem!" And a lot of that. It’s a very complicated problem. So I just wanted to add that because we keep looking for other strategies. And you see the question when you said, someone could be pleased with the curriculum, ‘I like it very much. It’s working for these children.’ And yet the other question was, "They’re saying it’s not working." And so it doesn’t even sound like it makes sense. It’s not working for these children. And so, help me. And yes, you were right, We have a lot of young teachers who haven’t used anything else. And so especially when the community gets -- and we have this report [the All Children Excelling report], "here’s better ways, there’s better programs" – people get very desperate, and they feel, ‘Well. give me one of those programs!" Always teachers are concerned about teaching reading. It is something of concern to everyone. Peter Horoschak, Superintendent of Schools: We don’t want to overwhelm you with answers to your question, but we certainly have some views on it. Gregg Betheil, Board of Education Member: You prefaced your statement by saying ‘some kids struggle’ and I have no idea what the answer to this is. ...Is that the 20% that we’re talking about? Or is it some smaller portion of 20%? Marilyn Davenport: You know they say 5% of children will probably have some real difficulty. But when you learn in a crowd and the people around you are learning with ease, you get very apprehensive. You know, you have to have confidence in learning to read. In some countries, they educate boys and girls differently. I mean there are just so many things that play into it. Yes, you can with extra instruction help the 15%. But 20%, yes. It’s almost magical for some children. They sit down and they read with great ease. And others – wonderful experiences, parents are reading to their children every night, and yet the child has difficulty learning to read. And as they go up, a lot of fourth grade teachers don’t know exactly how do we teach reading. First grade teachers do. And when you get a child in fourth grade and he can’t read, you begin to think, "Well, there’s something wrong. Either they didn’t teach him right or he doesn’t have enough materials," and that sort of thing. But the more concerned we get, the more complicated the problem becomes. But you have to trust children. A lot of what educators will tell you is that we force children into reading too soon, that if you would not get so concerned about children and let them learn naturally, sometimes you create fewer problems for children. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1813 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fringe, Since the evidence I have negates information ALREADY ON YOUR WEBSITE, how can you “find any research that does not directly relate to this district less than interesting and certainly not convincing”. If you are not interested in what is posted on your website, than why do you have it there in the first place? Looks like you only want to present a very specific viewpoint. The Marilyn Davenport remarks, taken out of context, are a case in point. It is true she does mention physical delays, and not pushing kids (very sensible advice IMHO), but she does not say that this applies as a standard policy, or that we should just sit back and do nothing for long periods of time, or expect children to learn to read on their own. This is hardly proof of a dominating "district philosophy.” If it is, surely it would be written down somewhere, don’t you think? The notion of "reading as natural" relates to the belief that reading is best acquired in a similar way to language--by guided use in social and purposeful settings. It does not mean that children are to be left a room of books and expected to teach themselves to read out in the wild. That is a mischaracterization often presented by skills first advocates, of which the writer of the letter you posted is one. Furthermore, other statements by Marilyn Davenport at BOE meetings show her to possess a decidedly balanced view of the reading process. I have heard her wax poetic about phonemic awareness training (and she was reported to lead sounding out chants at Seth Boyden) and the Yopp-Singer assessment used to screen all kindergarten students. At a recent BOE meeting she was getting so carried away with enthusiasm about adoption of the DIBELS assessment (recommended by ACE!) that I thought she and Lynn Crawford had temporarily switched brains (confirmed when Crawford then praised the Fountas & Pinnell phonics program in use at Jefferson). No strict adherent to whole language would ever endorse such assessments. But, NONE of these statements made by Marilyn Davenport are on the Tucker Lamkin website are they? So much for the objective/independent view. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 730 Registered: 3-2003 |
The Nan monologues continue, unfortunately. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1816 Registered: 2-2001 |
Reflective, It's not required reading and there will be no quiz. If you don't agree with me and it bothers you that much then scroll on by. Go watch TV or read a book. You don't have to act like a jerk.  | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 782 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'll assume from the above that Ms. Elkins has no research specific to this district. The problem with general educational research is that one can always find a study to support or negate about any proposition. See http://www.policyreview.org/OCT02/hirsch.html I'll leave the cult members to focus on the academic debates. I'm more interested in fact supported explanations for the objectively measured results of this district's students and specific plans with hard targets to improve those results. Perhaps these will be forthcoming in this year's BOE campaign. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1817 Registered: 2-2001 |
How can I get more specific to this district than to discuss remarks made by Marilyn Davenport at a BOE meeting? The Davenport remarks do indicate that children’s development is a concern. Based on my experience with my own child, I’m glad to live in a district that does not force or fail young children who do not mature equally on an arbitrary timeline. However, it is a huge leap to interpret those statements as the “BASIS of our district’s philosophy” and to perpetuate an image of children left intentionally to flounder for an indeterminate period of time. That's more of a tactical than a factual representation and it is contradicted by other statements made by Davenport that you do not include on your website. And BTW, if you don’t like academic debates, then why did you cite E. D. Hirsch’s academic debate as evidence? And if you don’t like what you label “cult members” why do you upload so many of their documents to your website as a source of truthful information? You don’t seem to mind anyone when they agree with your point of view. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 784 Registered: 5-2001 |
I've reviewed the Language Arts Curriculum links at http://hometown.aol.com/njfabian and stand by the above posts. If others have research by outside "experts" (even the NEA hack Bracey)that is specific to this district, I'll be happy to add it. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1570 Registered: 6-2001 |
(even the NEA hack Bracey) Looks like someone's subjectivity is showing! | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1821 Registered: 2-2001 |
OK, stand by them then. Where's the evidence to support the claim that “Our leadership’s philosophy is based upon the belief that children are best left alone to learn to read in their own time when they are physically ready.” I notice that same document containing that allegation also states that our district has an excessive remediation rate, especially in the early grades. But, how can a district that believes that children should be left on their own until they are ready to read be the same district that puts too many children into remediation? | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 786 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sounds like a question for Asst Super D or BOE incumbent candidates O'Leary, Jasey and Miller. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1826 Registered: 2-2001 |
No Tucker, the only one responsible for the factual inaccuracies on your website is you. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 787 Registered: 5-2001 |
As above, my interest is ensuring that the documents posted on the site are specifically related to the South Orange-Maplewood School District and that they are accurate as relates to the documents. The fact that some whine that the research to which they subscribe is not represented can be easily remedied by supplying a district specific study(ies) as ACE did. Until that time I see no reason to give credence to the general claims made by "researchers" such as Mr. Bracey employed by the NEA (national teachers union). My advice to Ms. Elkins, get your many supporters together and fund a study - as ACE did. I've never heard of any employers of Mr. Bracey being disappointed. Returning to the question posed, as there is evidence to support both parts of ACE's statement, I still would like to hear an answer from the incumbent candidates - O'Leary, Jasey and Miller. My prediction - supporters of the status quo will be surprised this campaign season to hear at least one of these candidates agree to the need for a different approach to Language Arts in the primary grades. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1827 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fringe, Considering those NEA members that you cozy up next to at BOE metings, and the writer of the document we have been discussing, I'd say you are far far far closer to the NEA than Gerald Bracey ever was. But, you know perfectly well that (1) Gerald Bracey is not even relevent to this discussion--just a strawman tactic to avoid admitting you have major factual flaws on your website, and, (2) that Gerald Bracey does not work for the NEA because I told you so over a year ago when I posted an article from the Washington Post on that subject: http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=3130&post=193972#POST1939 72 nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1129 Registered: 2-2001 Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:21 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 1828 Registered: 2-2001 |
Now, let’s get back to your website. What’s “accurate as relates to the documents” mean? It sounds like you are verifying that they are actually documents? Is that supposed to support the notion that we simultaneously don’t intervene with children whom who are not ready to read while referring too many of them to remediation? If so, it’s a bit thin. So, that’s one down as wrongO. Let’s move on to another. You seem keen on the ACE review so let’s go to that one. I notice they say they have based the evaluation on the National Reading Panel Report and I’ve read that and have a copy so feel free to cite page numbers (the Report of the Subgroups, please). Where in the NRP report can I find the evidence that: ---Curriculum decisions are too important to be left up to the individual teacher ---A reading curriculum MUST use decodable books ---A reading curriculum must have scope and sequence These are the major items that ACE faulted us for in the review which is supposed to be based on the findings of the NRP report. Now, let us put aside the debate over the truthfulness of the evaluation for a moment and just focus on the criteria for judgment itself. There are several problems. For starters, I’ve read the NRP report and there is nothing in there about making sure the teacher follows the curriculum and there is NO RESEARCH anywhere proving the superiority of using decodable books, and the NRP even contains a caution against scope and sequence—it certainly does not say a curriculum must have that. So, how can the ACE review be valid if we can’t even validate the evaluation form they used? | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 789 Registered: 5-2001 |
The simple fact is that there is no independent, district-specific study supporting the efficacy of the district's reading curriculum. There is at least one study that places it in question and there are those pesky test results that have again been explained by the long used "It's the poor black kids" defense. One wonders if the current incumbent candidates - O'Leary, Jasey and Miller - who have supported Super H with their votes on the BOE will have the courage to support him on this in the campaign. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1831 Registered: 2-2001 |
The simple fact is that your website is driven by ideology, not objective evidence. big surprise. | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 1119 Registered: 3-2002 |
Calling the kettle black here. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1836 Registered: 2-2001 |
No I'm not. I don't have a website that claims to provide factually correct and value-free information. Tucker does. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 485 Registered: 6-2001 |
Who's Tucker? |
