| Author | Message | ||
     Cathy Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 826 Registered: 6-2002  |
nan, so what you're saying is that there are posters at cross-purposes with each other - am I right? Some want to discuss educational theory, some are more interested in politics. Because these goals do not really intersect (although one could certainly argue that they should), there is opportunity for extreme disagreement. I can see this. However, when people are pulling out situations / stories from five years ago (!) and using these stories to make personal points today - not political or educational theory points, but personal points - I just have to believe that it goes deeper than what you are saying. Also "outing" personal identities is unnecessary and cannot be explained by the factors you describe. I cannot see what knowing or not knowing somebody's identity IRL has to do with anything. I'm not accusing you personally - you do get steamed sometimes, but almost always stay within acceptable boundaries. I'd say you get "testy" rather than "nasty", if you don't mind my analyzing things a little bit. (I've been known to get "testy" myself on occasion.) But that is not universal, even amongst those who agree with you online. I also enjoy discussions of educational theory - I'm an educator myself, and my job has to do with fostering good practice - and through various PLs and discussions here I think that we have many points of agreement. (a few where we could disagree). But no way am I going to enter into any of the discussions here. (well all right, I guess I have, but it's almost always against my better judgment. :-) I would hate to be associated too strongly with some of the other personalities here. No offense to them either - I've had some lovely PLs and MOL discussions with people that I see as "offenders" - but it just gets out of hand here. I can agree with them, like them, and yet be able to say objectively that their behavior here is (sometimes) unacceptable. I will boldly venture to say that I am not alone in generally avoiding posting here, for these reasons. This is unfortunate. I have no concrete suggestions to offer here - this is an open forum, and despite being privately owned I think Dave & Jamie do an incredibly good job protecting and fostering free speech here. I know that people accuse Dave of selectively banning people and therefore squashing free speech, but I totally disagree - I think he does a fine job balancing between free speech / acceptable behavior. It all comes down to individuals, and asking yourself every time you post, "am I adding light, or am I adding heat?" If primarily the latter, maybe hit "Cancel" instead of "post". But everybody knows that already. And now I'm going to change my user name, as I don't want anybody to confuse my posts with Cathy Bataille's. She seems to be a nice lady and I agree with her in many circumstances, but we're not the same person. :-) | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2108 Registered: 3-2004 |
C., Yes, I am an LC. Actually, there's no quick way to determine the needs of each child, for a variety of reasons, but primarily because children at this age move so fluidly and rapidly from strengths to weaknesses, depending upon what is asked of them, and what their environment and inherent traits are. There are informal assessments one can do, as a teacher, which most teachers do all the time anyway, as you teach. You assess whether or not the child learns better when you speak, when you provide visual aids, when you provide "manipulatives" which can be three dimensional objects to understand concepts such as addition and subtraction. You assess whether or not children have strength in phonics, by simply watching, listening, providing tasks and problem-solving activities. A child can have competency in recognition of consonants, but total confusion in recognition of vowels. A child can have competency in recognition of consonants in isolation, but total confusion about consonant blends. Vowel blends are the most confusing to most early learners, but it can vary. The best rule is that there is no rule, as to strengths and weaknesses in reading skills. Socioeconomic status has really no role in helping you determine whether or not a child will be able to recognize consonant blends or not. Really. If a child has a problem with visual/spatial reasoning, or auditory processing, it can affect their processing of phonetic information, and cuts totally across race, class and SES. So, on the kindergarten, first, second and third grade level, reading is an individualized process, and has to be taught as such. Careful use of classroom aides, materials, differential instruction, flexibility of the teacher to respond to and sense individual childrens' needs, all play major roles in the effectiveness of the teaching of reading, or anything for that matter, in these grades. Wow, it's a good thing we're doing state testing this morning, or I really wouldn't have this kind of time to post!!! | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 827 Registered: 3-2003 |
Twig In my first reponse to your question why the intensity on education, three reasons I mentionned were: accountability of the administration, of the elected board members, and improving communication. There are two new threads regarding the MLK challenge to the admin and the Board. This student group's challenge and multiple demands is out of the blue. But the background noise and signs have been un- mistakable for months. Many of these issues have been discussed, sometimes passionately, mostly by adults on this site. The solution Horoshak must be ousted, without a buyout. The incumbent candidates must be defeated. Between this year's 3 new candidates and last year's 3, they will control the Board and maybe some results will occur, finally. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1893 Registered: 2-2001 |
Cathy, Everyone on MOL is to some degree political, either grounded in educational philosophy or politics alone or some combination. There are some in limbo people just trying to figure out which end is up, but they eventually come to some understanding on the political/philosophical spectrum or cease entering the Ed threads. To complicate matters there are also posters with educational views that conflict with their politics and depending on the issue they might go with one or the other. So, as I mentioned before, you get whole language supporters voting for phonics advocates to get lower taxes. This year we might have votes for those that would reverse the Christmas carol ban while shrinking the whole music program. I don't know why it matters if someone brings something up from five years or five minutes ago. Relevance is not necessarily determined by time. Some old issues, such as the Reval, are huge insidious influences still affecting BOE election outcomes. OTOH, important recent issues such as the draconian NCLB or S1701 never seem to get much airplay. Go figure. But, people sure do whine and plan organized efforts about their special interests and for that reason I support extremely limited anonymity in the Ed section, if at all. Allowing people to hide behind a pseudo name provides too many with permission to act like immature jerks, or to clone into a multiple pre-formatted conversational drifts. It also eliminates traceability. No one has to know that you belong to a big local clan with a well know discriminatory agenda. No one knows who you share your law office with, either. You can be a big honcho in the teacher's union and pretend to be the confused mother of a floundering son who never got enough phonics. In such an environment, Outing is a natural byproduct because there is so much power in being anonymous. As for nasty or testy remarks, I don’t mind them so much when they are about the actual topic at hand. It’s only so nice to be nice to the nice. There is a difference between pointing out what is dumb and wrongheaded and stupid and of trying to discredit a person because of their weight or age or if their husband had the misfortune of once having a conversation with one of their friends (wink wink). Those are irrelevant or ad hominem attacks, and IMHO the kind that should get people banned. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5885 Registered: 1-2003  |
No one gets banned. Sometimes, the moderators suspend accounts for short periods. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3460 Registered: 5-2001  |
There was a poster named crabbyappleton who got suspended indefinitely (read: banned). | ||
| apm Citizen Username: Apm Post Number: 235 Registered: 5-2001 |
"No one has to know that you belong to a big local clan with a well know discriminatory agenda." Do you mean in Maplewood or in general??? | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 5617 Registered: 4-1998  |
Why does a good idea become a better idea or a bad one worse because of who is saying it? It's completely immaterial if a SOMEA member (aka teacher) is posing as a mother whose child didn't get enough phonics, for example. Sure, it would be a quick out to totally dismiss a point of view for some people, but how does that in itself refute anything to do with using phonics to teach? Moreover, many people don't mind hearing what teachers think about education. There are 8 people reading for each person posting. Most could care less about taking sides in local politics. They just want to learn about issues and the more that's out there, the better. | ||
| CLK Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 831 Registered: 6-2002 |
nan, I find myself in disagreement with much of what you wrote. e.g. "Allowing people to hide behind a pseudo name provides too many with permission to act like immature jerks, or to clone into a multiple pre-formatted conversational drifts. It also eliminates traceability. " Perhaps so - but those are the conditions that exist here. It provides for remarkable freedom of expression, that many wouldn't otherwise have. I think this is something good, not bad - although it certainly has its negatives. I know at least one person who started using a pseudonym here because she was getting overflow from MOL to real life - i.e. speaking her mind was having negative consequences in her life, beyond what most would consider "reasonable." Traceability is not always a positive, and can in fact put people in scary positions. I post under my real name because I want to. But as a result I do not post as freely as I might otherwise - I am a lot more circumspect. Some of my views are extreme, but you won't hear them here. Is this good or bad? It certainly keeps me nicer (usually) but I don't always speak my mind fully. Others want more freedom - and I respect that. I think we all have to respect the rules here or go elsewhere. Anybody could set up a message board like this one with some investment of time and money, with your own rules. I'm not saying it would be easy (although the technology is more & more accessible), but it could be done. If you find the rules here unsuitable to your preferences, you are free to do this. "I don't know why it matters if someone brings something up from five years or five minutes ago. Relevance is not necessarily determined by time. " Relevance may not be, but the personal stuff can be very determined by time. Viewpoints evolve over time, as do life experiences. A person with a child in elementary school five years ago could now have a person in high school. This could change their viewpoint dramatically. For example, my opinions about a lot of stuff have changed since I posted in a thread (from 2003) that you referenced here not long ago. Your linking there wasn't about me, so I don't really mind - but my mind has changed a lot because of experience. I can see where this kind of linking back could detract considerably from the point at hand. If it's about issues (as your link-back was), then fine, but it isn't always. What I referred to originally was a post about whose husband had lunch with whom in 2000, and what they might have discussed and motivations for same. Both "sides" got really, really ugly. As an observer of this I was disturbed and distressed by the personal animus displayed here. fwiw, I agree totally about the ad hominem attacks - I don't think anybody disagrees. From what I've seen the board moderators do too, and do an admirable job of suspending (not banning, sorry Tom!) people when they do this. They're not perfect, but they do an excellent job under very tricky circumstances. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 992 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well said Cathy - thank you. Nan, I've enjoyed so much of what you have contributed to MOL - you're witty, intelligent and passionate. On the flip side sometimes you fall (or allow yourself to be pushed) into a narrow thought pattern and attack mode that doesn't encourage understanding or conversation. Real conversation among people with open, fertile minds is what I hope you and most of us want to nurture and protect here in the education thread. Peace Nan - really. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1895 Registered: 2-2001 |
What specifically are you talking about Lydia? My attitude towards scripted reading programs, maybe? I didn't think you were so hot on those yourself. | ||
| nan Citizen Username: Nan Post Number: 1896 Registered: 2-2001 |
Dave, I'm not sure I am understanding what you are saying. Let me get this straight. Do you really think it is ethical for people to practice social engineering on MOL? Do you have no problem when others adopt elaborate, completely false identities and experiences just to push their agendas? Do you really think there is no difference between discussing a topic with a real or with a fake person? If so, I totally disagree. Cathy, What are your thoughts on this? Anyone else? | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 995 Registered: 5-2001 |
Nan - I agree with you on so many subjects, including scripted reading programs (I think) I guess I think you are a bit combative when there isn't an arena. We're all trying to work together to make our 2 towns and our one school system benefit our children. I don't know you in person, but I do know we have shared objectives. I believe that getting along starts with neighbors talking to each other - airing out differences and working from there. "Be about Peace" doesn't stand a chance if mothers in the same town are attacking each other. The road to peace and understanding means that we all have to accept that our neighbors and friends may have different philosophies but similar goals. Also, where I may have come out of the box full of piss and vinegar a half-decade ago, I've mellowed and understand the nuances today. Cathy said it so gracefully and beautifully - people grow, I've grown. I'm sure there are many posts from years ago that if I read they would make me cringe today. Sort of like a high school yearbook quote, but worse because it can be cut and pasted.  | ||
| CLK Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 833 Registered: 6-2002 |
nan, since you asked (I assume you're asking me, not the other Cathy) - people can only engage in "social engineering" if others listen to them. If a person's message is clear and compelling, people will listen, and if it isn't they won't. I don't think it matters if they post as themselves or the Grand High Poo-Bah or Captain Kangaroo (or Captain Kirk, for that matter). As to making up fake experiences, you are right that in a medium like this that kind of behavior cannot be controlled. One thing that I think some people can't seem to get is that this is not a newspaper. If you read a newspaper, you have a reasonable assumption that what you are reading is true (although sometimes presented in a biased manner). But this is a message board, a medium where free speech rules but as a result you have to assume that nothing that you read is true. Or in any case, it should be taken with a very large grain of salt. I consider this forum a perfect vehicle for assessing the logic of what people are saying. Emotional appeals based on personal experience should be even more meaningless in terms of guiding opinion when posted here than they are in the press. I'm not sure that answers your question, but that's my brain dump for the day. One more thing - my occasional rather snippy posting about etiquette is worth no more than the paper it's written on (and it isn't even written on paper!). If I don't like the way people act here, I am free to complain. So are you. But that's the only control we have. This is not my board, I don't make the rules. If I want to hang around here, I live with Dave's rules or I go home. End of story. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2117 Registered: 3-2004 |
What's the matter with emotional appeals based on personal experience? I think that's the best. PS, I tell the truth, and expect it of others. | ||
| CLK Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 834 Registered: 6-2002 |
I tell the truth and expect it of others too, but I don't assume that I'm always going to get it, especially not here. What's wrong with personal appeals is that they always represent a sample of one. One person may point out that her kid didn't read well until s/he got an intensive course in phonics. What that tells me is that this kid learned well that way, or at least that his mother believed it to be so. It tells me nothing about how most kids learn. You can insert the personal anecdote of your choice in the story above - the point is that a "sample of one" can be very compelling, but it shouldn't be. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2118 Registered: 3-2004 |
It may not be statistically significant, but for purposes of communication among parents and teachers, on this message board, and interested others, it seems relevant, appropriate, and fine to me. If you are using the message board to choose curriculum, you may have a problem, given the fact that there are professionals whom you may, or may not agree with, who have spent lifetimes preparing to choose curriculum, and are able to do a good job of it. If someone needs to make public comments on their decisions, Board meetings might be the forum of choice. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2119 Registered: 3-2004 |
Besides, this message board would never be a valid research instrument, nor would the reports of individuals, no matter how unimpassioned, qualify as valid research. | ||
| CLK Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 835 Registered: 6-2002 |
tulip, you're right that the "sample of ones" presented by people with tons of experience are usually worth more than others might be. But I don't know always know the expertise of people posting here. I can say for sure that I will trust real name posters with known credentials more than I will trust pseudonym posters, regardless of what they claim their credentials to be. That doesn't mean I want to stop pseudonym posters - they have a right to be here (you have a right to be here, tulip!). But it does mean that I approach what you say a little differently. No offense to you - this is a reality of message-board-land. I'm simply addresing nan's point that some pseudonym posters make stuff up (or so she claims - I do not know this for a fact myself). Yes, it is unethical to make stuff up - no question. But in a medium without editorial control that is simply a fact of life (or at least a possibility). I can't stop this, you can't stop it, nan can't stop it - and what's more, even Dave can't stop it unless the particular lies are demonstrably untrue and/or hurtful. Going back to one of nan's earlier points about real-name posting, I've never heard of a message board where anonymous posting was disallowed. I don't even know how you'd create such a community. It would be very complicated both practically and legally, or so I would surmise. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2120 Registered: 3-2004 |
First, I appreciate your opinion that I have a right to be here. I think that, if nan is in any way referring to me in her feelings about the ethics of posting anonymously about education, she might cite herself. I have not seen her credentials, but I have not had difficulty discussing phonemic awareness with her. It did not appear to me to be an unethical discussion. If you, or anyone, chooses not to believe my credentials, or background, or statements of my experience, that's your choice. The reverse is true, as well. The beauty of this medium is that one can choose what one believes, and can have the opportunity to express one's ideas, regardless of discriminatory feelings or defamatory statements of others. ...and CLK, please tell me what you mean by "this stuff" when you say "it is unethical to make this stuff up," |
