The first sentence of the article we read put it right, "The essence of both reading and reading instruction in change." Everything we know about reading tells us that we are not the same person when we finish a book that we were when we started. The same goes for technology. We are not the same world we were before the Internet. We have been exposed to too many good (and some bad) things on the web that it's too late to turn back, nor would we want to. It's amazing how much technology has become infused into our curriculum. The article says that it is "likely that students who begin school this year will experience even more profound changes during their own literacy journeys. Looking back on my own "literacy journey", I remember playing Oregon Trail in elementary school by putting an original floppy disk(they were really floppy) into an Apple Computer. I also remember getting our first family computer. There was so much to learn about it and we were fascinated by the fact that we could chat in chat rooms with people from around the world. When I moved, it was much easier to stay in touch with friends because I had e-mail and instant messaging. In Middle School, we could no longer handwrite our essays, they had to be typed. By the time I got to high school, I was using the internet to help search for things for school assignments. College was the same and nowadays, I use the Internet every single day whether it be to shop, do online banking, check e-mail or stay in touch with friends.
I agree with the need to teach our children to become familiar with "new literacies" as defined on p.1572. There needs to be explicit lessons taught to children to help them with finding information, evaluating the sources, using the information to answer questions, and then communicating. In my district, in 4th grade, students need to do a research paper. This is their introduction to the research process and I love being the first person to introduce them to it. The teachers collaborate with the media specialist to teach the students how to tell if a source is valid and how to take the information and say it in your own words (i.e. NOT plagiarize) As older generations become more technologically literate, it trickles down into the younger grades.
Some facts that really stood out to me were that in 2002 (5 years ago) 60% of U.S. households had Internet access. It can be assumed that that number has gone up. Another shocking fact is that in eight years (1994-2002) the percentage of United States classrooms with at least one computer has gone from 3% to 92%!! (1578). Since 2002, the numbers have probably gone up here as well. It is evident that the Internet and computer use is pervasive, but what does that mean for us as educators? It is our job to prepare students for the "real world". Our economy is one where there is global competition. Students who take jobs in business fields will no doubt be communicating with people around the world. How will they do that? By using computers. The Internet is here to stay, so we need to teach our children how to be "literate" in it, that is how to get information and communicate it. It is likely that there will soon by more standards (I believe there is only one now in Languages Arts in NJ- Media Literacy) that will hold students accountable for their handling of technologies. Teachers will be held responsible for making sure all students are technologically literate as government becomes part of ensuring higher levels of literacy in the U.S. like it has been done in the U.K., Finland, Ireland, Australia and others.
It is evident that the idea of literacy is changing. It can no longer solely mean being able to read print material. In another class I took, we discussed literacy in detail. We read an article by Gee and discovered that being literate is social and in a given context it means that you are able to understand, interpret and communicate information. For example, I am literate with information about cooking. I understand terminlogy and I can communicate it to others. However, I'm completely illiterate when it comes to fishing. Even though I might be able to decode fishing books, I do not understand them and would not be able to communicate what something means. However, the great thing about literacy, as we know, is that it can be taught. If someone who was literate in fishing taught me the terms and showed me how to do things, then it can be assumed that I might become literate in fishing. This is the same idea we need to use when educating our students about the new literacies of technological devices.
Two of the things that I think are most important to remember from the article when teaching new literacies is that 1) new literacies are quickly changing (deictic) and 2) speed counts. What we teach our children this year may be an archaic way of doing something next year. However, we can be sure that each thing they learn about technology will serve as a stepping stone to the next thing. Also, since speed will begin to be more important, I think we will find a larger issue with our students with learning disabilities. It is difficult for them to skim webpages and quickly gather information. There will need to be alternatives developed for children who struggle. As we enter into a new world of literacy, we can only hope to prepare our students for what their futures will hold.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Monday, July 16, 2007
Thoughts on NCLB and Politics of Education
Just hearing "No Child Left Behind" makes many educators cringe, myself included. It's not that we disagree with being held accountable, it's just that many of the demands made can be construed as insulting to our professionalism.
There are many good aspects about having legislation that requires schools to be accountable for A.Y.P. It is true that there is a huge disconnect between the value of education state to state. I'm sure no one would disagree that education is important but it is evident in more states than others. For example, I know that New Jersey has the number one graduation rate in the country. Teachers are paid well in New Jersey and students tend to do well on standardized tests. I know someone who is a teacher in New Mexico. She gets paid peanuts, there is little to no state funding and the children are failing. Is that her fault? She has her doctorate in education and has spent years doing research and working with children, yet her students are still failing. It is for that reason that I think NCLB is a good idea. It tries to "level the playing field" a little bit. I think (even though sometimes I disagree with myself) that it is important to give teachers a standard to work towards as well. We teach our children through modeling and there is no better way to get our children to love learning than to show that we, ourselves, are lifelong learners.
In terms of my criticisms, they are basically aligned with the ones outlined in the wikipedia article. The biggest flaw in my opinion is standardized testing. I understand the need for a common evaluation tool but the results are not useful at all. There is little consideration for children with learning disabilities (though their IEPs are followed during testing). It also doesn't take into account testing anxiety and the like. It pains me to know that what my students have been learning and working on the whole year, they only have one week worth of testing to show it: two days of language arts, two days of math, one day of science (for 4th graders). I also don't think that the test is aligned with what we are placing emphasis on these days. We are teaching students to explain their thinking and we give them an opportunity to answer open-ended questions, discuss with groups and inquire about things of interest to them. They also self-select their reading materials and write about topics of their own choosing. Not on the NJASK! I also disagree with when the testing is scheduled for- mid-March. Students still have three months of instruction after that, yet we are expected to cram everything that might be on the test into the first 6 months of school. It's obvious that this is a flaw when even the students start to make comments about it and question why they are being tested on things when it's not even the end of the year. The last problem I have with standardized testing is that if we are going to have a federal law about eduation, how can it be that each state can give whatever test they want to their students and the scores will be equally considered. This is one thing I never understood. Maybe I am partial, but I happen to think that the NJASK is very hard, yet other states don't take it. They have their own way of measuring student achievement. Are all states comparable to one another?
I also agree with the "inequitable divisions of resources." It is true that with so much focus on one or two subject, the others might suffer. I think this is true in a lot of urban areas where the state is threatening to take away funding. Teachers are forced to spend their whole school year "teaching to the test" and trying to prepare their children for the standardized tests. With that kind of instruction, so much is lost. Children get bored of the same thing each day: practicing multiple choice questions and writing to picture prompts, and they may began to not take it seriously.
In terms of politics in education, it's something that always has been (on a state level) and always will be. In fact, I think politics will begin to play a bigger role in the future. I think it trickles down from other areas. Politicians are feeling pressure to keep our country/state/city bigger and better and they need highly educated people to do so.
There are many good aspects about having legislation that requires schools to be accountable for A.Y.P. It is true that there is a huge disconnect between the value of education state to state. I'm sure no one would disagree that education is important but it is evident in more states than others. For example, I know that New Jersey has the number one graduation rate in the country. Teachers are paid well in New Jersey and students tend to do well on standardized tests. I know someone who is a teacher in New Mexico. She gets paid peanuts, there is little to no state funding and the children are failing. Is that her fault? She has her doctorate in education and has spent years doing research and working with children, yet her students are still failing. It is for that reason that I think NCLB is a good idea. It tries to "level the playing field" a little bit. I think (even though sometimes I disagree with myself) that it is important to give teachers a standard to work towards as well. We teach our children through modeling and there is no better way to get our children to love learning than to show that we, ourselves, are lifelong learners.
In terms of my criticisms, they are basically aligned with the ones outlined in the wikipedia article. The biggest flaw in my opinion is standardized testing. I understand the need for a common evaluation tool but the results are not useful at all. There is little consideration for children with learning disabilities (though their IEPs are followed during testing). It also doesn't take into account testing anxiety and the like. It pains me to know that what my students have been learning and working on the whole year, they only have one week worth of testing to show it: two days of language arts, two days of math, one day of science (for 4th graders). I also don't think that the test is aligned with what we are placing emphasis on these days. We are teaching students to explain their thinking and we give them an opportunity to answer open-ended questions, discuss with groups and inquire about things of interest to them. They also self-select their reading materials and write about topics of their own choosing. Not on the NJASK! I also disagree with when the testing is scheduled for- mid-March. Students still have three months of instruction after that, yet we are expected to cram everything that might be on the test into the first 6 months of school. It's obvious that this is a flaw when even the students start to make comments about it and question why they are being tested on things when it's not even the end of the year. The last problem I have with standardized testing is that if we are going to have a federal law about eduation, how can it be that each state can give whatever test they want to their students and the scores will be equally considered. This is one thing I never understood. Maybe I am partial, but I happen to think that the NJASK is very hard, yet other states don't take it. They have their own way of measuring student achievement. Are all states comparable to one another?
I also agree with the "inequitable divisions of resources." It is true that with so much focus on one or two subject, the others might suffer. I think this is true in a lot of urban areas where the state is threatening to take away funding. Teachers are forced to spend their whole school year "teaching to the test" and trying to prepare their children for the standardized tests. With that kind of instruction, so much is lost. Children get bored of the same thing each day: practicing multiple choice questions and writing to picture prompts, and they may began to not take it seriously.
In terms of politics in education, it's something that always has been (on a state level) and always will be. In fact, I think politics will begin to play a bigger role in the future. I think it trickles down from other areas. Politicians are feeling pressure to keep our country/state/city bigger and better and they need highly educated people to do so.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Assessment
Even as a student I thought it was unfair that we would spend so long learning something and only have one chance to prove our knowledge on the big test that came at the end of the unit. As a student, I would have much preferred the new form of assessment which combines both formal and informal techniques. Routman says it best: "Assessment must promote learning, not just measure it" (559). I agree with him that it is important to use assessments to help students learn their strengths and weaknesses and also learn from their mistakes so that they can do better on future assignments. I never give a child a test or assessment back without giving her/him the opportunity to ask questions about it. I try to meet with the children who have had difficulty one on one so that I can assist the student in recognizing where they had trouble.
"Self-assessment is critical" (561). I have found this to be true as well. I have found that sometimes children are more critical of themselves than I would have been of them. I like to have them do self-assessments in all subject areas but and area that it works particularly well in is Reading- Literature Circles. Students are honest (most of the time) about their contributions and they really think critically about their contribution to the group.
Routman discusses using portfolios to document students' progress throughout the year. He discusses the importance of giving the child much of the responsibility and freedom of choice in terms of what to include. I think that is very important, as well, because then the child feels a sense of ownership and pride about the work he/she chooses.
I enjoyed reading about "three pluses and a wish." I think it's a good way to report progress as well as get feedback from children. It can be used in many ways including a way for the teacher to reflect on best practices.
The discussion of "standards" was right on. I agree that the standards were created with good intention, but as discussed, there are many flaws: the are not equitable, rigorous, are difficult to use/understand and don't promote inquiry learning. What is perhaps most frustrating to educators is that the statewide standardized tests are based on these standards. Like Routman says, they are rarely supported by all the wonderful things that go on in a classroom such as self-assessment, observation, portfolios, open-ended responses, etc.
One of the things that has helped me most in all of the areas Routman has discussed in this chapter is going to Staff Development workshops. Whether they be in or out of district conferences or even as simple as grade-level articulation meetings with a literacy coach, they always provide feedback. I think it is so important to discuss our practices with other teachers. Because we are alone in our classrooms all day with children, we must ask others to come observe us and/or give us feedback on different styles of teaching and things that have worked in other classrooms. The best thing about teaching is that you can always try new things, including different ways to assess the children.
I thought the online links about assessment were also very useful. First, I read the assessment techniques and the principles of effective literacy assessment. Then, I read the "snapshots" of Mrs. Rodriguez's classroom and found that she implemented many of the principles and techniques that were discussed. It was also encouraging for me to read several of these and realize that I already do them in my own classroom. I also got a lot of ideas of things to try in upcoming years.
Even as a student I thought it was unfair that we would spend so long learning something and only have one chance to prove our knowledge on the big test that came at the end of the unit. As a student, I would have much preferred the new form of assessment which combines both formal and informal techniques. Routman says it best: "Assessment must promote learning, not just measure it" (559). I agree with him that it is important to use assessments to help students learn their strengths and weaknesses and also learn from their mistakes so that they can do better on future assignments. I never give a child a test or assessment back without giving her/him the opportunity to ask questions about it. I try to meet with the children who have had difficulty one on one so that I can assist the student in recognizing where they had trouble.
"Self-assessment is critical" (561). I have found this to be true as well. I have found that sometimes children are more critical of themselves than I would have been of them. I like to have them do self-assessments in all subject areas but and area that it works particularly well in is Reading- Literature Circles. Students are honest (most of the time) about their contributions and they really think critically about their contribution to the group.
Routman discusses using portfolios to document students' progress throughout the year. He discusses the importance of giving the child much of the responsibility and freedom of choice in terms of what to include. I think that is very important, as well, because then the child feels a sense of ownership and pride about the work he/she chooses.
I enjoyed reading about "three pluses and a wish." I think it's a good way to report progress as well as get feedback from children. It can be used in many ways including a way for the teacher to reflect on best practices.
The discussion of "standards" was right on. I agree that the standards were created with good intention, but as discussed, there are many flaws: the are not equitable, rigorous, are difficult to use/understand and don't promote inquiry learning. What is perhaps most frustrating to educators is that the statewide standardized tests are based on these standards. Like Routman says, they are rarely supported by all the wonderful things that go on in a classroom such as self-assessment, observation, portfolios, open-ended responses, etc.
One of the things that has helped me most in all of the areas Routman has discussed in this chapter is going to Staff Development workshops. Whether they be in or out of district conferences or even as simple as grade-level articulation meetings with a literacy coach, they always provide feedback. I think it is so important to discuss our practices with other teachers. Because we are alone in our classrooms all day with children, we must ask others to come observe us and/or give us feedback on different styles of teaching and things that have worked in other classrooms. The best thing about teaching is that you can always try new things, including different ways to assess the children.
I thought the online links about assessment were also very useful. First, I read the assessment techniques and the principles of effective literacy assessment. Then, I read the "snapshots" of Mrs. Rodriguez's classroom and found that she implemented many of the principles and techniques that were discussed. It was also encouraging for me to read several of these and realize that I already do them in my own classroom. I also got a lot of ideas of things to try in upcoming years.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Theory Readings
Whoa! That was a lot to digest, but I found it very useful in terms of updating my knowledge about the theories that are out there. I appreciated the readings from Monday a lot more (Chapters 2 and 3) once I began reading 5,6,7. I found it useful to be reminded of all of those theories (Unfoldment, Structuralism, Behaviorism, etc.) from Undergrad "Child Psychology" classes. I was actually surprised at how much I remembered, particularly about Pavlov( I remembered the dogs) and Skinner. Several of the things I read verified things I am already doing in my classroom Classical Conditioning(teaching things in a sequential order from easiest to more difficult) and Connectivism (positive reinforcement) and I began to think back to a lot of the professional development I have taken part in and it is evident that a lot of what teachers are taught has its roots in theoretical approaches.
Once I had the general consensus of theories on how people learn, I was excited to see what the theories of literacy development, in particular, had in store. Piaget is a name I quickly recognized. I think it's amazing that he believed, "children learn through direct experiences and social interactions with peers. Play and activity, according to Piaget, were equated with intellectual growth." His research was done decades ago, yet his rationale still hold true today and it is the basis for such a push on pre-school settings for young children. His theory of cognitive development has also been useful in helping teachers and administrators determine "age-appropriate" activities and in turn create curricula and lesson plans accordingly. As a 4th grade teacher, I rarely get to see children explicitly in any of the stages from the "stage model" or in their "emergent literacy" phase, as those are both seen in primary grades, but I do see their effects. I believe most strongly in the Theory of Literacy Development and the Family Literacy Theory. It is important for teachers to be good role models (practice shared reading, use big books, read while the kids are reading) but it is SO important for parents to be models of good literacy for their children from a very young age. In college, I worked at a day-care center and it was obvious what families read together and talked to each other and what families did not. Parents are not only needed to model fluency, but they should also model the practice of reading so that it becomes a habit to the child. I liked the idea from this chapter of giving a family literacy survey so that, as a teacher, I can see where this child is coming from. I have always given my children a reading interest survey, but I am interested to see what the correlation between parents' and children's attitude towards reading.
In chapter 6, I thought that most of these theories were very similar. In short, there were two main points: 1. Reading is a social activity. 2. Children learn from social interactions with others. This includes the Social Learning Theory's idea of learning by being an observer. I think there are so many things that we do within the classroom to provide social learning experiences. The example in the book of literature circles is a really great way to get children talking and sharing experiences with one another in terms of their connections to the reading, background knowledge they bring, inferences they can make, etc. The theory which I think is in the spotlight most right now as "best practice" is Vygotsky's Social Constructivism. His idea of reaching a child in his or her "zone of proximal development" has sparked the idea of differentiated instruction. As a beginning teacher, I think this was one of the hardest things to do; teach one topic and one lesson, but reach all different kinds of learners. I learned by trial and error the best way to do this. Scaffolding has now become part of my every day routine.
The last chapter put is so eloquently that learning is our way of making sense of the world around us. It was interesting to see that there were several different ways to process information. The Atkinson and Shiffrin Model was a great visual representation and really helped me see what happens to new information when we learn it. The Automatic Information Processing Model is one that I think teachers in a lot of different grades see often. I really related to the Teacher Anecdote in this section. I see the same thing in my fourth grade class. When students have trouble decoding, it negatively affects their comprehension. Sometimes students focus so much on the skill of decoding that they are completely unable to recall or understand what they have just read. Another problem that I have seen stem from this is that once decoding becomes automatic, even when students reach a word they can decode, but don't understand, they rarely take steps to find out what it means. While teaching a reading strategy "Monitoring for Meaning" I had some students who were not using context clues as much as they should. Even if they could decode the words, they didn't understand what they meant. So, I gave them a short passage on something to do with car mechanics. The vocabulary was completely unfamiliar to them (and me too, at first). I challenged them to use their strategies (context clues, reread, read-on, infer, use background knowledge, etc.) to try to figure out what the text meant. I'm interested to see what the more current research says about information/cognitive process learning in the next two chapters.
Once I had the general consensus of theories on how people learn, I was excited to see what the theories of literacy development, in particular, had in store. Piaget is a name I quickly recognized. I think it's amazing that he believed, "children learn through direct experiences and social interactions with peers. Play and activity, according to Piaget, were equated with intellectual growth." His research was done decades ago, yet his rationale still hold true today and it is the basis for such a push on pre-school settings for young children. His theory of cognitive development has also been useful in helping teachers and administrators determine "age-appropriate" activities and in turn create curricula and lesson plans accordingly. As a 4th grade teacher, I rarely get to see children explicitly in any of the stages from the "stage model" or in their "emergent literacy" phase, as those are both seen in primary grades, but I do see their effects. I believe most strongly in the Theory of Literacy Development and the Family Literacy Theory. It is important for teachers to be good role models (practice shared reading, use big books, read while the kids are reading) but it is SO important for parents to be models of good literacy for their children from a very young age. In college, I worked at a day-care center and it was obvious what families read together and talked to each other and what families did not. Parents are not only needed to model fluency, but they should also model the practice of reading so that it becomes a habit to the child. I liked the idea from this chapter of giving a family literacy survey so that, as a teacher, I can see where this child is coming from. I have always given my children a reading interest survey, but I am interested to see what the correlation between parents' and children's attitude towards reading.
In chapter 6, I thought that most of these theories were very similar. In short, there were two main points: 1. Reading is a social activity. 2. Children learn from social interactions with others. This includes the Social Learning Theory's idea of learning by being an observer. I think there are so many things that we do within the classroom to provide social learning experiences. The example in the book of literature circles is a really great way to get children talking and sharing experiences with one another in terms of their connections to the reading, background knowledge they bring, inferences they can make, etc. The theory which I think is in the spotlight most right now as "best practice" is Vygotsky's Social Constructivism. His idea of reaching a child in his or her "zone of proximal development" has sparked the idea of differentiated instruction. As a beginning teacher, I think this was one of the hardest things to do; teach one topic and one lesson, but reach all different kinds of learners. I learned by trial and error the best way to do this. Scaffolding has now become part of my every day routine.
The last chapter put is so eloquently that learning is our way of making sense of the world around us. It was interesting to see that there were several different ways to process information. The Atkinson and Shiffrin Model was a great visual representation and really helped me see what happens to new information when we learn it. The Automatic Information Processing Model is one that I think teachers in a lot of different grades see often. I really related to the Teacher Anecdote in this section. I see the same thing in my fourth grade class. When students have trouble decoding, it negatively affects their comprehension. Sometimes students focus so much on the skill of decoding that they are completely unable to recall or understand what they have just read. Another problem that I have seen stem from this is that once decoding becomes automatic, even when students reach a word they can decode, but don't understand, they rarely take steps to find out what it means. While teaching a reading strategy "Monitoring for Meaning" I had some students who were not using context clues as much as they should. Even if they could decode the words, they didn't understand what they meant. So, I gave them a short passage on something to do with car mechanics. The vocabulary was completely unfamiliar to them (and me too, at first). I challenged them to use their strategies (context clues, reread, read-on, infer, use background knowledge, etc.) to try to figure out what the text meant. I'm interested to see what the more current research says about information/cognitive process learning in the next two chapters.
Monday, July 2, 2007
How do children acquire language?
I found it very interesting to read the different theories of language acquisition. There is the constant debate between biology and environment. Nativists, like Chomsky and Lennenberg, believe that language is an innate characteristic and children are born with an LAD (language acquisition device). Environmental theorists such as Bates, Snow and Tomasello believe that language is learned through interactions between language learners and their surrounding community.
The "Critical Period Hypothesis" argues that there is a certain time period (until about age 12) that a child has to acquire language and if that point is passed, it is very difficult to gain any sense of a language. Two examples of this are Victor and Genie. Both were children who, though they may have had an LAD, were never given the opportunity to speak. That is why I believe that neither theory, nature vs. nurture is correct. I do believe, given the evidence, that children are born with "innate language abilities" however, if they are not given the opportunity to hear correct language and try it out themselves, it becomes useless. However, I don't agree with the theory that after age 12, it is extremely difficult to learn other languages. I think it is difficult, but I know many people who just began language classes in high school and are fluent. I think it depends on the person and his/her dedication to learning the language.
I think there is an important correlation here to reading because it emphasizes the need for parents (or other adults) to read to children so that they can model correct pronunciation and fluency. Reading to a child also lends itself to beginning to teach a child comprehension and help develop so many other skills including recall, summary, chronological order, etc. Like we discussed in class, being fluent or literate doesn't just mean you can speak the language. It is necessary to also have a handle on the written language, be able to read it and also understand others who speak it.
The "Critical Period Hypothesis" argues that there is a certain time period (until about age 12) that a child has to acquire language and if that point is passed, it is very difficult to gain any sense of a language. Two examples of this are Victor and Genie. Both were children who, though they may have had an LAD, were never given the opportunity to speak. That is why I believe that neither theory, nature vs. nurture is correct. I do believe, given the evidence, that children are born with "innate language abilities" however, if they are not given the opportunity to hear correct language and try it out themselves, it becomes useless. However, I don't agree with the theory that after age 12, it is extremely difficult to learn other languages. I think it is difficult, but I know many people who just began language classes in high school and are fluent. I think it depends on the person and his/her dedication to learning the language.
I think there is an important correlation here to reading because it emphasizes the need for parents (or other adults) to read to children so that they can model correct pronunciation and fluency. Reading to a child also lends itself to beginning to teach a child comprehension and help develop so many other skills including recall, summary, chronological order, etc. Like we discussed in class, being fluent or literate doesn't just mean you can speak the language. It is necessary to also have a handle on the written language, be able to read it and also understand others who speak it.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Response to Articles
I thought the first site was very refreshing to read. As a reading strategy, I teach "visualizing" and tell the students that it is so important to "make a movie in your mind" of what is going on in the story. Being that we use picture books as resources, even in the upper grades, I thought it was wonderful that illustrators are being recognized for their contribution to reading in their own special way.
The definition of literacy is pretty much what I thought it was going to be. One thing that really surprised me was how many people are illiterate in our own country. We have so much money and it seems that we place an emphasis on education (though of course not as much as we should) and that statistic just shocked me.
The last article really hit me hardest. I would be lying if I said I can't believe that is happening. I have read many books (several by Jonathan Kozol) that describe the constant attempt to make reading into a "one size fits all" program. The more time I spend in the classroom, the more I realize just how different every child is. They each need something different and I agree with the author, Elizabeth Jaeger, that in an attempt to implement these scripted reading programs to go along with NCLB, it is actually causing more children to be "left behind." I wonder if someone will eventually realize how damaging this is before it's too late.
The definition of literacy is pretty much what I thought it was going to be. One thing that really surprised me was how many people are illiterate in our own country. We have so much money and it seems that we place an emphasis on education (though of course not as much as we should) and that statistic just shocked me.
The last article really hit me hardest. I would be lying if I said I can't believe that is happening. I have read many books (several by Jonathan Kozol) that describe the constant attempt to make reading into a "one size fits all" program. The more time I spend in the classroom, the more I realize just how different every child is. They each need something different and I agree with the author, Elizabeth Jaeger, that in an attempt to implement these scripted reading programs to go along with NCLB, it is actually causing more children to be "left behind." I wonder if someone will eventually realize how damaging this is before it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)